Learning About Archaeology and Prehistoric Life TH

Science & Education
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00047-z
ARTICLE
Learning About Archaeology and Prehistoric Life

The Effects of Two Workshops in Primary Education
M. Besse 1 & S. Fragnière 1,2 & A. Müller 2 1 3 4

& M. Piguet & L. Dubois & D. Miéville &
S. Schoeb 4 & D. Schumacher 3
# The Author(s) 2019
Abstract
This article is about an intervention introducing prehistoric life in primary education. Its
objectives were to foster openness and interest for prehistory and archaeology, as well as
content knowledge and conceptual learning with a focus on four main facets: basic knowledge
about prehistoric life; conceptual learning/change regarding prehistory; learning about archae-
ologists and archaeology as a scientific discipline; and learning about interactions of archae-
ology and other disciplines (interdisciplinarity). Students participated in two workshops about
the creation of a prehistoric object, highlighting the close interaction between the natural
sciences and humanities within archaeology. The workshop emphasised dialogue between
students, teachers and researchers, as well as active participation by the students. The
educational effects of the workshops were studied using a pre-post design (N = 439, ages 8–
10 years). Results show that the workshops had sizeable positive effects on both affective and
cognitive variables. The appreciation of the workshops ranged from ≈ 70 to 90% (of maximum
value) for interest, perceived educational value and further aspects. We also found a positive
impact of the intervention on cognitive variables, e.g. for several elements of key knowledge
about prehistory (such as where prehistoric people lived and with what resources; medium to
large effect sizes: d > 0.9 and d = 0.46, respectively). Regarding conceptual learning, we found
improved understanding of the link between climate change and long-term changes in wildlife
in a given area (medium to large effect sizes, d = 0.5–0.8). A positive impact was also found
for the understanding of archaeology encompassing both humanities and the natural sciences
(e.g. understanding of climate change as inferred from archaeological knowledge, d = 0.3–0.5).
No differences of the various outcomes were found between girls and boys; the workshops
appear suitable for both genders. We conclude with a discussion of the interpretation of our
findings, of some limitations and possible improvements, and of future perspectives, in
particular for further classroom implementation.
* A. Müller
andreas.mueller@unige.ch
Extended author information available on the last page of the article

M. Besse et al.
1 Introduction
This contribution is about a project entitled “Valentina and Leo: everyday life in prehistoric
times” (V&L, for short) which was conducted between 2013 and 2015 among primary school
students in the canton of Geneva (French-speaking part of Switzerland). The purpose of the
project (an intervention in the form of workshops, and an evaluation of its impact) was to
introduce prehistoric life and archaeology as a discipline in primary education, following a
series of learning goals explained in detail below. Two workshops of 90 to 120 minutes in
length were developed and carried out with 12 classes of the 3rd and 4th grade of primary
school (international classification: ISCED code 1, UNESCO 2011; Swiss classification:
HARMOS 5P, 6P, EDK/CDIP 2015; age group 8–10 years old). In each workshop, students
were invited to actively participate in the creation of a prehistoric-style object, by using
techniques and materials that would have been available at that period. Valentina and Leo
were conceived as fictional characters participating in all of the project’s activities, giving their
name to the whole project.
Archaeological studies of prehistory are a field that offers interesting links between the
natural, the human, and the social sciences. Consider, for example, a lithic arrowhead. Its shape
tells us about the social group that created it and its raw material (the type of flint used) gives
us indications about its origins and the economic networks of exchange it might have travelled
through (Affolter 2002). The same holds for the fragments of fauna found in archaeological
sites, and studied through archaeozoology. An animal’s species informs the researcher about
the environment (climate, biotope, type of terrain, etc.), and one can detect e.g. climatic
changes occurring at different points during prehistory, which would in turn have led to
technical innovations and modifications of human societies (Marinval-Vigne and Vigne
1985). Faunal determination also allows us to identify the social and economic functioning
of these societies, e.g. by looking at the proportion of domesticated vs. hunted animals (Chaix
and Méniel 2001; Horard-Herbin and Vigne 2006).
The educational objectives of this project lay at the intersection of three perspectives, based
on the local study program (CIIP 2010–2016), and the expertise of the participating prehistory
researchers, complemented by research in science education and educational science (e.g.
about conceptual learning). These objectives included both affective (attitudes, interest) and
cognitive (learning and understanding) aspects, described as follows:
& Fostering openness and interest of students to learn about prehistory and archaeology:
The current understanding of general and scientific literacy, on both international and
national levels (OECD 2006; EDK/CDIP 2015), emphasises affective aspects such as
attitudes and interest beyond purely cognitive ones. A first objective was thus to foster
interest in prehistory and archaeology, and a willingness to actively engage in learning and
thinking about it.
& Knowledge of prehistory, of chronology, and of the importance of chronological land-
marks: During the two workshops, we presented the scale of prehistoric time, which is
often difficult to understand, particularly for children. The workshops also drew students’
attention to several key aspects of prehistory: the hunting economy, art, circulation and
exchange of raw materials, domestication of animals and plants, settlements, metallurgy,
everyday life, social structures and power. The students also reflected on the evolution of
techniques and objects over the course of time according to environmental, economic,
demographic and cultural pressures. Knowing how to place objects and events within a
timeline is a fundamental aspect of an archaeologist’s work. The V&L project aimed to

raise students’ awareness of the various prehistoric eras and the principal stages of human
evolution.
& Learning about archaeologists and archaeology as a scientific discipline: This project was
also an opportunity to discuss the scientific reasoning of archaeologists, who aim to
reconstruct the history of human societies through the study of the materials they left
behind. It is important to note that the researcher is like a detective, taking into account all
available evidence at a given time in order to reconstruct the human past, while remem-
bering that this knowledge always remains open to development. Archaeologists observe
archaeological facts (artefacts, traces, structures), analyse them and interpret them to
propose scenarios of the human past. All data, even when quite incomplete, are useful
to reconstitute past lifestyles. Like all scientists, the archaeologist goes through steps of
observation and questioning to build her reflexion on the matter. She must select and
organise data, observe and describe facts, use equipment and measurements during
analyses, imagine research and experimentation strategies, formulate hypotheses and
confront them to experiment results, and confront his or her observations, analyses and
experiments to their original hypotheses. Science observes, questions and investigates in
order to propose interpretations of the world and on the functioning of prehistoric societies.
Archaeology is a science based on evolving knowledge, and it has its limitations and
uncertainties (we cannot be certain of some things, some hypotheses are conflicting, some
interpretations are questionable, etc.). The archaeologist can require practical investiga-
tions in order to test and validate some hypotheses. Indeed, sometimes she uses the same
raw materials and recreate the same actions as prehistoric men and women, in order to
better understand their lifestyle. By comparing various sources of evidence, the archaeol-
ogist can then conclude that one hypothesis is preferable to another. In this respect, the
creation of a prehistoric object by the children during these workshops is a direct parallel to
the work of archaeologists.1
& Conceptual learning about prehistory and archaeology: One of the aims was to teach
some key concepts (such as chronology), in order to correct existing stereotypes about
archaeology and prehistory, some of which are deeply anchored in children and adults.
Examples include archaeologists as treasure hunters or prehistoric humans being brutish
and stupid.
& Learning about interactions of archaeology and other disciplines (interdisciplinarity): As
emphasised above, archaeology is a domain that offers the possibility to establish links
between different fields related to the natural sciences, as well as social and human
sciences. Archaeologists consult many specialists during different stages of their analyses:
geologists, archaeozoologists, archaeobotanists, palaeoanthropologists, ethnologists,
draftspeople, conservator-restorers, etc. The workshops were therefore an opportunity to
show students that one must often build bridges between different disciplines in order to
understand a topic.
& Active participation of learners: The workshops required the active participation of
students in order to create a “prehistoric-style” object, using techniques and materials that
would have been available at the time. This participative approach allowed for playful
1
Although the topic of nature of science was not explicitly addressed in the workshops, the above considerations
are connected to it, and we will come back to this at the end of this contribution
M. Besse et al.
learning of some important steps and themes of prehistory, materialised as a particular

object.
& Link with regular curriculum/teaching: One of the objectives of the local study plan is to
“identify the way Humankind has organised its collective life through time, here and
elsewhere…”, and to cover topics such as “changes and permanence in lifestyle, everyday
life and social organisation”, “myths and reality” and “traces and memories” (Plan
d’Etudes Romand, CIIP 2010–2016). We adapted our project to these objectives.
From a larger perspective, the project and its objectives were guided by the idea of scientific
literacy, in its own right and as an integral component of general literacy. First, conceptual
learning (in particular related to conceptual difficulties) is a core issue of the current under-
standing of scientific literacy (AAAS 1990; Bybee 1997; Impey 2010; Roberts 2007). Second,
beyond the knowledge of science, providing a reliable image about science, scientific thought
and scientific work is a defining element of scientific literacy (OECD 2006). This is therefore
another important objective of the project, as exemplified by the discipline of archaeology.
Third, another main objective of the workshops was to point out the interdisciplinary nature of
archaeological research, and the importance of linking the natural sciences to the humanities
and cultural studies that are involved, in terms of both methods and results. Important links of
this kind are of fundamental philosophical interest. They create links with anthropology (our
image of the Humane; Kaeser 2008; Patou-Mathis 2011) or with astronomy (our worldviews,
and their historical development; see Fucili (2005) for an interesting example of such an
interdisciplinary approach including archaeology in astronomy education).
These interdisciplinary links might also be of societal and political interest, just like
environmental and climate studies (begin of introduction). PISA (OECD 2006) has a nice
example of a test item related to archaeology at the intersection of scientific and general
literacy (in fact, an item in the reading assessment part), requiring students to infer a
connection between the changes to the water level of Lake Chad over time and to the wildlife
in its surrounding from prehistoric rock art and other sources of information. Museums
(Masciangioli 2011), media (Jarman and McClune 2007) and travels (Packer 2015) provide
several kinds of real-life situations where the close interaction between the natural sciences and
humanities within archaeology can be frequently encountered, with little consideration of the
traditional boundaries between disciplines, and the educated citizen should be able to make
sense of these encounters.
Again, this is very much in the spirit of science literacy: emphasising links from the natural
sciences to other disciplines and areas of human activity (Matthews 2014), emphasising
science as a part of culture (Galili 2012), and scientific literacy as part of general literacy
(Norris and Phillips 2003; Yore et al. 2007). Finally, as stated above, one of the project’s
objective was to foster interest in prehistory and archaeology, and the willingness to actively
engage in learning and thinking about it. This is equally in line with the inclusion of interest
and other affective aspects into the current understanding of scientific literacy (OECD 2006).
The ROSE study (Relevance in Science Education) states that archaeology is one of the
research areas mentioned by young people as sparking interest, due to the sense of mystery and
unsolved questions that it generates (Schreiner 2006).
The project represents a close collaboration between prehistoric archaeologists, teaching
specialists for primary school, science educators and school authorities. Moreover, the prep-
aration of the workshops, of the project documentation and of the demonstration objects
required close collaboration between prehistoric archaeologists and technicians. With the
approval of the school authorities, 12 classes were chosen to participate in the project. The
discussions with the education experts resulted in the design of two prehistoric workshops,
including the evaluation of the impact of the project.
2 Research Background
Beyond the guiding idea of scientific literacy as part of general literacy, the Valentina and Leo
workshop intervention is mainly based on three strands of research, namely the educational
impact of (i) manipulatives and hands-on activities, (ii) out-of-school learning offers, and (iii)
conceptual difficulties and conceptual learning. Each of these we will review in turn.
2.1 Manipulatives and Hands-on Activities
Hands-on and manipulative activities are considered by many practitioners as strongly moti-
vating for learners; Brunsell and Fleming (2014) describe them as one way to provide joy in a
learning context. For science learning, a large-sample study has indeed shown that they are the
type of learning activities generating the highest degree of interest (Häussler et al. 1998;
Wentzel and Wigfield 2009). A recent study (Swarat et al. 2012) has confirmed that hands-on
activities can be strong predictors of science interest in school.
As for cognitive effects, the RAND corporation has conducted another thorough study
about the impact of hands-on learning on science achievement of 8th graders (age group 13–
14 years old) on a large sample, which yielded very strong results on science achievement;
moreover, no strong influences of learner ability were found in this study (Ruby 2001). These
effects concerning general science learning are consistent with those for various specific
science topics: seasons, lunar motion, lunar phases and other topics of elementary astronomy
(Brazell and Espinoza 2009); proportional reasoning as applied to mixing/concentration
problems (Fujimura 2001); or molecular models in organic chemistry (Stull et al. 2012).
Furthermore, these findings from individual studies are confirmed by meta-analytic results
on the effects of manipulatives on science learning (Schroeder et al. 2007; Wise and Okey
1983). Comparable effects have been found for several outcomes in mathematics education
(effect sizes for simple application, problem solving, justification/explanation; Carbonneau
et al. 2013). Indeed, these effects are partially lower than those for science learning (and also
less consistent; Calove and Gomila 2009), a fact discussed in terms of the difficulty of learners
to link or transfer from a concrete manipulation to an abstract concept and its symbolic
representation (Dörfler 2000; Carbonneau et al. 2013).
The theoretical background behind hands-on-activities and manipulatives as educational
approaches is manifold, and the idea has a long tradition in the history of education and
educational science. A historical account can be found in Furinghetti et al. (2013) and Robert
et al. (2013), starting with early ideas by Fröbel to Montessori and other proponents of
progressive pedagogy. These ideas were taken up by developmental psychology (Bruner
1960; Piaget 1952), investigating and establishing empirically how students can benefit from
learning various subject areas through manipulatives (see e.g. Carbonneau et al. 2013 for a
more detailed description of this strand of research for mathematics learning). Most influential
among these schools of thought are probably (neo-)Piagetian theories of learning, according to
which active manipulation is an essential basis for acquiring concepts and for learning. This is
stated throughout the work of Piaget, e.g. “the fundamental fact that all knowledge is linked to
M. Besse et al.
action” (Piaget 1967) or the “primacy of action” (1977, and is well-known to be a central tenet
of his theory of cognitive development (Müller et al. 2009b). This important fact becomes
most apparent in the concrete-operational stage of cognitive development, where learners
develop more and more complex concepts and cognitive procedures, but still closely related to
concrete, material instances and not yet available as abstract and formal ideas and rules
(Inhelder and Piaget 1959; Piaget 1954; Singer 2008). This stage was initially associated with
the age group 7/8–11/12 years old (Inhelder and Piaget 1959), but it must be emphasised that
Piaget himself, as well as later researchers, stated that a given person’s stage of cognitive
development is strongly context-dependent. In many cases, adults remain concrete-operational
thinkers (Piaget 1966; Singer 2008). Within our project, our target age group is consistent with
the concrete-operational stage and the rationale for the use of manipulatives applies well.
We may summarise with Vosniadou and Vamvakoussi (2006) that “[t]he use of manipula-
tives, models, and cultural artefacts is considered a significant component of powerful learning
environments”. However, as they also noted, and as the results show, the mere presence of
such tools is not a guarantee for successful learning. One is thus well advised to take into
account two strong factors that moderate the learning effects of manipulatives, as inferred from
a recent meta-analysis of their use in mathematics education, and consistent with the current
understanding in educational science in general. First is the age/developmental status, i.e. the
support for learners in the concrete-operational stage is stronger, very much consistent with the
developmental theory as just discussed. Second, instructional guidance was found to influence
the efficacy of manipulatives (Carbonneau et al. 2013). A similar result concerning advantages
of interventions with vs. without (teacher) guidance has been found, for example in a meta-
analysis for inquiry-based learning (Furtak et al. 2012).
2.2 Out-of-School Learning Opportunities
We now turn to the research background for another main educational component of the
Valentina and Leo project: out-of-school learning opportunities (OSLeOs). In terms of termi-
nology, these include on the one hand field trips of learners to an out-of-school location (e.g.
museums and science centres) and on the other hand visits of researchers or other experts to
schools from the outside (e.g. from universities or from various other professional domains)
(Jones and Stapleton 2017; National Research Council 2009). The latter are special in the
sense that they are learning opportunities offered from outside the school, but taking place at
school, often during regular classes. Examples of this format are various mobile laboratory or
learning activity offered by non-school providers (often museums or research institutions), and
expert/professional interventions at school, for example the project “Scientists and Mathema-
ticians in Schools” (Rennie 2015; Rennie and Howitt 2009); the Valentina and Leo project is of
the latter kind. Strong support for the educational value of OSLeOs of both kinds has been
gathered for decades, and they are increasingly recognised as an integral part of science and
technology education (Braund and Reiss 2006; Jones and Stapleton 2017; National Research
Council 2009; UNESCO (Edt.) 1983). We discuss two of the main arguments in favour of an
extensive use of OSLeOs, which are essential for the present contribution.
The first argument is that out-of-school learning can help to establish ongoing, lifelong
attitudes and learning processes in the sense of scientific literacy (Lucas 1983; Rennie 2007),
especially when coordinated with in-school (formal) learning (CAISE 2010; Stocklmayer et al.
2010). Braund and Reiss (2006) discuss the following ways in which out-of-classroom
contexts can foster science learning (their formulations are given in italics):
& “Extended and authentic practical work” and “Access to rare material”: This is very much
in line with what was stated in the section about manipulatives and “hands-on” activities.
In fact, V&L provides a unique learning experience showing authentic prehistoric objects,
and providing material allowing for the reproduction of some of them.2
& “Attitudes to school science, stimulating further learning”: This is very much in line with
the other research just cited above and one of the positive OSLEO effects most consistently
stated in the field. In the case of V&L, this concerns archaeology in particular and its
specific status between the natural sciences and humanities (see above).
& “Improved development and integration of concepts”: This is an important aspect of V&L,
to which we return below.
For the sake of completeness, it should be mentioned that Braund and Reiss (2006) discuss
“collaborative work and responsibility for learning” as a fifth way to foster science learning by
out-of-classroom contexts, but this will not be considered in the present study.
A second argument is that the personal contact with researchers and the work they do
provides opportunities to experience authentic ways of doing science (as opposed to the
restricted or even artificial views of science as they may sometimes be presented in school).
This contributes to overcome misconceptions and stereotypes related to researchers as people
and research as a professional activity, and how it is done in a given area (Euler 2004;
Stocklmayer et al. 2010). Moreover, the researcher may convey the experience of curiosity,
excitement and satisfaction found in her work (Euler 2004; Stocklmayer et al. 2010). Tytler
et al. (2017) argued that such encounters can make a valuable contribution to provide role
models of adults interested in and committed to science and related areas. Affective outcomes
of this kind are also one of the main objectives of V&L, and we will discuss the relevant
research in more detail in the following section.
OSLeOs are very often conceived to promote positive effects on the affective level, such as
an enjoyable science experience, curiosity and interest for particular contents, or science in
general (Braund and Reiss 2006; Euler 2005; NRC 2009; Stocklmayer et al. 2010). Developers
and researchers emphasise the importance of affective outcomes as an aspect of scientific
literacy (attitudes of future citizens, interest in learning about science, etc.). As Rennie (1994)
put it, “an enjoyable and successful visit experience is an important outcome because it can
predispose the learner to engage in further cognitive learning. Motivation and willingness to
engage in further instruction are most likely to be the important affective outcomes of a visit.”
A considerable body of research indeed supports positive affective outcomes of various kinds
(Rennie 2007; Tal 2012). For instance, a series of studies on more than 10 sites have shown
quite positive results for enjoyment/general appreciation of various out-of-school science
learning opportunities (70–90% of maximal value), consistently across several countries
(France, Germany, Switzerland), age groups (primary to secondary level II), various settings
(single and multiple visits, degree of guidance) and disciplines (biology, chemistry, physics),
and across more than a decade (Müller 2017). Moreover, it appears that the positive effects of
out-of-school learning particularly apply to girls. Pawek (2009) has found a considerable
decrease of the “gender gap” (tendency of girls to be less interested in Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics than boys). A similar effect was found for the self-concept of
girls (Euler 2007).
2
Braund and Reiss (2006) mention also “access to big science”, which is of course not applicable to the project
presented here.
M. Besse et al.
This is also in line with the encouraging impact of encounters with role models as
mentioned above, for girls in particular with female scientists (Tytler et al. 2017). Even
OSLeOs taking place as a single event (typically during half a day) can provide a situation
with a decreased gender gap for interest and self-concept. The same holds true for the interest
gap in general: the difference in general physics interest between a highly and weakly
interested group of students (median split) decreases from d = − 2.33 before to d = − 0.49 after
an out-of-school lab visit (Pawek 2009).
It is furthermore useful to locate V&L within existing research on out-of-school learning
opportunities. Falk et al. (2008) have proposed a simple classification model along two
dimensions of the formal/informal learning “landscape”, as they called it. These two dimen-
sions are the degree to which understanding in some area of science (or related disciplines) is a
goal of the various learning settings (from weakly to strongly present), the other the degree of
informality (from highly to weakly informal, Fig. 1). Cooperative expert/professional inter-
ventions at schools like Valentina and Leo or “Scientists in School” (Rennie 2015; Rennie and
Howitt 2009) can be integrated in this landscape in a natural way, as they are characterised by a
high value placed on the “understanding” dimension, and a medium value on the “informal/
formal” dimension (integrating an informal, external offer in the formal classroom setting).
Existing research provides evidence that such a type of scientist-school cooperation is capable
of “bringing authentic science into schools” (Cripps Clark et al. 2014), and of providing
“opportunities to experience scientists as real people, and as role models/mentors”, increased
knowledge, and last but not least an enjoyable experience (Marginson et al. 2013; Rennie
2015; Rennie and Howitt 2009).
Fig. 1 The formal/informal education landscape proposed by Falk et al. (2008) for science and related areas
(STEM = science, technology, engineering, mathematics). Within this framework, experts/professional interven-
tions in schools (EPIS) like Valentina and Leo are characterised by a high value placed on the “understanding”
dimension, and a medium value on the “informal/formal” dimension
2.3 Conceptual Difficulties and Conceptual Learning
We now address conceptual learning and conceptual change as a third area of research
background important for the present study. As stated above, Braund and Reiss (2006)
considered “improved development and integration of concepts” as one of the main ways in
which out-of-classroom settings can foster science learning. Conceptual change, in particular,
is related to a situation where existing concepts originating either from previous instruction or,
more often, from sources outside school (everyday life, popular culture, etc.) are markedly
different from the scientific concepts in a given area (Chi and Roscoe 2002; Scott et al. 2007).
In the latter case, these are often described as “conceptual obstacles” (or intuitive conceptions,
preconceptions, misconceptions, to name but a few other terms). In the context of the V&L
workshops, we consider the following topics of conceptual learning:
& Kinds (“species”) of animals represented in prehistoric paintings: This implies not only
reliable factual knowledge (naming and recognising the species in question), but also an
understanding of (at least) two important conceptual aspects, which are essential for
meaningful representation and interpretation of this factual knowledge (National
Research Council 2000). First, understanding that there were profound changes in the
species present in a given geographical area at different times (with species present in
former times one would nowadays associate to very different geographical regions), and
second of the reasons of these changes (in particular, climate change).
& Dinosaur misconception: The idea that “cavemen” lived at the same time as dinosaurs is a
classic misconception (in fact, it is a special case of the topic of “represented animals”),
well studied for more than two decades. Research has shown a considerable prevalence
among children and even adult university students (Catley and Novick 2009; Schoon
1993).
& “Brute caveman” stereotype: Another stereotype is that of prehistoric man as an ape-like
brute, typically depicted hirsute, with a chimpanzee-like skull, armed with a club, and with
an overall dull and aggressive appearance. This “brute caveman” stereotype is discussed
with respect to conceptual understanding of prehistory and archaeology (Feder 2008;
Patou-Mathis 2011). It is quite current in popular culture (van Riper 2002), in part based
on early representations of Neanderthals and Hominids, and it can be found in older
academic work (see Gamble 1994; Moser and Gamble 1997, for an account on how this
stereotype has developed and changed during the development of our view of prehistoric
human beings).
& Archaeology/archaeologist stereotypes: One of the objectives of the project was to convey
a reliable image about archaeologists and their work, their object of study and the scientific
approach in the discipline. In Anglo-Saxon countries, the “Indiana Jones” stereotype is
widespread, preventing the formation of a reliable image: discovery of precious objects
inside a forgotten tomb and use of a treasure map by a male adventurer fighting criminal
adversaries and ferocious beasts (Gotshalk-Stine 2011; Scantlebury et al. 2007). Yet, it is
not the pecuniary value of an archaeological object that makes its scientific value: modest
and broken objects and even “garbage” can be of great value in this respect (see below),
and archaeological research is done very often in unspectacular field sites, laboratories and
libraries.
& Garbage: A further aspect of specific interest was the understanding of the well-known
scientific value of garbage in archaeology (Rathje and Murphy 2001), nicely formulated as
M. Besse et al.
follows: “99 percent or more of what most archaeologists dig up, record, and analyse in
obsessive detail is what past peoples threw away as worthless—broken ceramics, broken
or dulled stone tools, tool-making debitage, food-making debris, food waste, broken glass,
rusted metal, on and on.” (Shanks et al. 2004). This is not an easy paradox to understand,
and there could be a strong misconception here for two reasons: first, the notions of
garbage and value in everyday experience are by definition opposite to each other. Second,
there is the “precious object” idea strongly linked to the “Indiana Jones” stereotype.
2.4 Research Questions
In line with the research background outlined in the preceding sections, our research questions
were as follows:
& Research question 1: What is the perception of the workshops by the students on the
affective level, in particular regarding overall appreciation/enjoyment, activation/engage-
ment, educational value, as well as practical aspects (organisation)?
& Research question 2: What are the effects of the workshops on the cognitive level, in
particular for the following aspects:
– learning about prehistoric life

– conceptual learning related to prehistory and archaeology
– familiarisation with archaeology as a discipline and work (what an archaeologist does)
– understanding of the interdisciplinarity of archaeology, its interactions (as a discipline between
human and natural sciences) and other disciplines (such as ecology and climate studies).
3 Educational Scenario of the Workshops
As mentioned previously, Valentina and Leo were conceived as fictional characters participat-
ing in all of the project’s activities, and giving the project its name. A logo was designed and
included on all project documents to allow the students to identify with these characters
(Fig. 2).
Fig. 2 Valentina and Leo project’s logo (by Eva Gutscher, University of Geneva)
Two workshops were presented to each class (see Table 1 for an overview). Each of the
workshops (total length 90–120 minutes) consisted of three phases. During the first phase, the
archaeologist, using a PowerPoint presentation, introduced the topic with numerous images,
photos and reconstitutions. During 20 to 30 minutes, she discussed the work of archaeologist,
humans’ way of life at the end of the Palaeolithic, their settlements, and the animals present
and/or hunted during that period. The idea of time and how prehistory actually refers to
different well-defined periods, as well as how each of these periods represents changes in
lifestyle, was extensively discussed.
For the painting workshop, the archaeologist showed several examples of painted or
engraved cave-art and explained painting techniques. During the bone awl workshop, she
explained archaeozoology, which enables the determination of the species to which the bone
belonged, the use of bone material as a tool or a medium for art, and details of the method of
the awl’s creation. During the presentation, the archaeologist regularly asked the students
questions, allowing them to express what they know or think (e.g. What kind of climate would
there have been 20,000 years ago? Which animals could humans hunt at that time?).
The second phase, of about 20 minutes, was a moment of exchange and free conversation
around a table on which archaeological objects were presented (Fig. 3). The objects were either
real archaeological artefacts or replicas: animal hides, bones, flint, bone and antler tools,
pigments. For both workshops, there were different objects linked to the activities proposed.
The archaeologist presented each object, some of which were more enigmatic (ligament,
hammerstone, polished stone axe, etc.), and tried to make the students guess their function.
Sometimes, she demonstrated their use directly. The students had ample opportunity to
discuss, ask questions and to touch the archaeological objects. They tended to be very active
and impressed during this phase, due to rarely having the occasion to be in contact with real
archaeological material (they often asked if the objects were real, their age, etc.). This phase
was a special moment of exchange between the students, the archaeologist and the teacher, and
allowed the students to dig deep into the past. The archaeologist fostered and participated in a
dialogue to make students think and formulate hypotheses on objects’ functions, the material
used and the method employed to make them, just like researchers do. Students asked many
questions about the everyday activities of prehistoric humans, such as what they ate, about
their clothes, whether they had shoes, etc. They realised that the most beautiful or “better
finished” objects were not necessarily the most recent ones. They discussed the differences
between artefacts from the Palaeolithic and the Neolithic, since they corresponded not only to
different human needs, but to environmental changes as well.
The third and main phase was the manual activity during which the students tried to
emulate prehistoric man by using similar techniques and materials to create an object. First,
the archaeologist showed students how to proceed and what material they should use. The
students then carried out the activity and the archaeologist stayed among them to answer
Table 1 Characteristics of the two workshops (common educational objectives are described in the text)
Workshop Key content Period

title
Prehistoric Archaeology, end of Palaeolithic, ice age, animals, hunting, settlements, December 2013 to
painting caves, painting techniques, flint, pigments February 2014
Bone awl Archaeology, archeozoology, animals, hunting, craft, abrading, engraving, March to
bone, weapons, flint tools, antler tools, May 2014
M. Besse et al.
Fig. 3 a, b Pictures of the students during the presentation and manipulation of objects (Livrons school, April
2014)
questions and to help them, if necessary. This phase lasted 30 to 40 minutes, including
preparation and clean-up. We now turn to some specific details of the workshops.
As stated in the introduction, an important overall objective of the project was to maintain a
close link with the regular curriculum/teaching. In this regard, the project was based on the areas
entitled “Mathematics and natural sciences” (MSN) and “Human and social sciences” (SHS) from
the local study plan called the Plan d’Etudes Romand (PER; CIIP 2010–2016), with particular
emphasis on the following learning objective (the translations from the original documents in
French are our own; the acronyms in parentheses give the relevant chapter of the PER):
& “to identify the ways in which humankind organised their lives in groups through time,
here and elsewhere” (SHS 22, central to both workshops);
& “to self-appropriate relevant tools in real-world situation to understand questions in human
and social sciences”; “to explore natural and technological phenomena using procedures
typical of experimental sciences” (SHS23 and MSN 26, respectively; focus of the objective
“Learning about archaeologists and archaeology as scientific discipline” of the project);
& “to determine characteristics of life and of various environments, drawing conclusions
about the sustainability of life” (MSN 28; central to the core content “changes of climate”
and of wildlife in a given area).
The project took into account further chapters of the local study plan, such as “Creative and
manual activities” (A 23 AC&M: “Experiment with various plastic and artisan techniques” or
A 24 AC&M: “To have deep encounters with various artistic fields and cultures”) or certain
areas of general skills (teamwork, communication, learning strategies, creative thought and
procedures for reflection).
3.1 Workshop 1: Prehistoric Painting
In the course of the Upper Palaeolithic, many caves, mainly located in Southern France and
Spain, were adorned by a large number of rock paintings and engravings. Most of them depict
animals (aurochs, horses, reindeers, mammoths, bison, etc.) and geometric designs. Humans
are rarely represented. Cave art, some dating back about 30,000 years in the Chauvet Cave
(Vallon-Pont-d’Arc, Ardèche; Clottes 2001) and even earlier in Northern Spain (Hellstrom
2012; Pike et al. 2012), was made during nearly 20,000 years. Current research on cave art
aims at developing our understanding of various aspects: determining the chronology of
artistic expression and its dating, reconstructing the drawing techniques, analysing the pig-
ments used, understanding the meaning of the pictorial representations. This workshop
allowed students to discover the masterpieces of the first prehistoric painters by creating a
painting in the same manner with Palaeolithic artists, i.e. by using their fingers and organic
pigments on a canvas resembling a cave wall (Fig. 4). The students were instructed to paint
what humankind could have represented 20,000 years ago, with photos of real cave art made
available as inspiration. During this exercise, they realised the mastery of the artistic produc-
tions of these prehistoric people and were generally impressed by this.
3.2 Workshop 2: Manufacturing a Bone Awl
At the end of the Palaeolithic period, humans started using reindeer antlers, bones and other
materials cut from hunted animals to manufacture various objects such as weapons, tools or
Fig. 4 a, b Pictures of the students during the prehistoric painting workshop (Ami-Argand school, January 2014)
M. Besse et al.
Fig. 5 a, b Pictures of students during the bone awl workshop
ornaments. The study of bone artefacts is related to archaeozoology, yielding information on

the faunal species used, and using shape and wear analysis to determine the function of these
objects. The archaeologist refers to collections stemming from experimentation (animal
skeletons, use wear types). Each child in the workshop reproduced the actions of these ancient
people by abrading a bone on a block of sandstone in order to obtain an awl that could be
decorated with a flint tool (Fig. 5).
This workshop required strength and patience in order to obtain a useful awl; at first some
students were discouraged as they found the process to be long, but they eventually found the
right technique and ended up comparing the efficacy of their creation to those of other
students.
4 Methods
The impact of the workshops was studied from two perspectives, affective (appreciation/
enjoyment, engagement3) and cognitive (learning and understanding), in close alignment with
the objectives of the project.
3
Following PISA (OECD 2009), we use “engagement” as an umbrella term comprising in particular interest,
effort investment and active participation.
4.1 Sample and Data Collection
Participants were from 12 classes at three primary schools in the canton of Geneva, in 3rd and
4th grade classes (international classification: ISCED code 1, UNESCO 2011; Swiss classifi-
cation: HARMOS 5P, 6P, EDK/CDIP 2015; see 4.2 for selection of these classes). There were
five classes 5P, four classes 6P, two classes 5P-6P, and one special needs class. The sample
sizes were N = 217 (“prehistoric paintings” workshop, PP) and N = 222 (“bone awl” workshop,
BA), with 52% girls and 48% boys, mean age 9 years (SD = 1 year). The language used in
teaching in this area of Switzerland is French.
Student data were collected in the classes at four measurement points (PP pre/post, BA pre/
post), with a test administration time of about 30 minutes (judged as acceptable by the primary
teaching experts in the project group, as well as by the participating teachers). There were N =
374 participants from whom we could gather the questionnaire from both workshops. Teacher
data were also collected and will be reported elsewhere.
4.2 Framework of the Intervention
The project was supported by the Swiss National Foundation within the framework of the
Agora science communication program. Total funding amounted to approx. 300 Swiss Francs
per student, with 20% allocated for evaluation. In order to ensure coherence between the
intended content and the educational approach of the workshops, the curriculum, the interests
and abilities of the students, and the evaluation, a steering group of experts was formed. It was
composed of prehistoric archaeologists, teaching experts and school authority for primary
schools, as well as science education researchers.
Authorization by the school authorities was obtained, taking into account educational
adequacy and interest, and ensuring anonymity. The 12 classes from three schools were
selected by the responsible coordinator taking into account the temporal constraints of both
the lesson plan and the project schedule, and after having obtained the approval of school
principals and teachers. All schools were within the canton of Geneva (Champs-Fréchets and
Livron school in Meyrin, Ami-Argand school in Versoix).
The prehistoric painting workshop was tested in two pilot classes in November 2013, and
some details were changed. The remaining classes did the workshop between December 2013
and February 2014. The second workshop (bone awl) took place between March and
May 2014. The interventions lasted about two hours and were conducted by an archaeologist.
4.3 Instruments and Data Analysis
4.3.1 Methodological Choices
The Valentina and Leo team opted for a primarily quantitative approach based on question-
naires, for several reasons. First, it is well suited for the specific educational objectives of the
project. In the domain of specific engagement and appreciation, one is not in a new area
requiring an exploratory approach, since there is a rather considerable body of research (Kind
et al. 2007; OECD 2013; Rheinberg 2004) and of validated methods justifying a quantitative
approach, in particular relating to two essential aspects of the project namely extra-curricular
learning opportunities in general (Orion et al. 1997; Rennie 1994) and science learning in
particular (Hoffmann et al. 1997; Rheinberg and Wendland 2003). Second, to assess specific,
M. Besse et al.
well-defined learning aspects, a quantitative approach is also justified (OECD 2013); in fact,
this is the foundation of the entire development of evidence-based research (Hattie 2009). This
true not only for factual, but also conceptual knowledge (Liu 2012). Third, a quantitative
approach allows to probe for changes of both affective and cognitive variables, when
combined with pre- and post-testing (see Section 4.1).
It is certainly true that interesting aspects of the project, such as prevalent ideas and
stereotypes about archaeologists (see 5.2.3), could be investigated in a more complete manner
by including qualitative methods (e.g. interviews). It has to be kept in mind, however, that
research approaches taking qualitative methods fully into account invariably require full-time
work for years, very often within the framework of a stand-alone project (Gotshalk-Stine
2011). The investigation of the educational effects of Valentina and Leo, however, is not such a
research project, but an adjunct evaluation that had to be carried out in a very limited amount
of time (a 20% FTE, i.e. one day per week). In this time, the evaluation had to be developed,
tested, administrated more than 400 times, and the data entered and analysed. Moreover, the
results gathered in this very tight framework were expected to allow useful conclusions to be
drawn about the future development of the workshops, and further offers based on them to be
developed. To carry out this work program was a non-trivial achievement even for a quanti-
tative approach restricted to a limited set of well-defined questions.
4.3.2 Student Questionnaires
The questionnaire for the affective part of the study was based on existing instruments (Kuhn
2010; Kuhn and Müller 2014, in turn based on Rheinberg and Wendland 2003; Rennie 1994;
Orion et al. 1997). The format was a 15-item five-point rating scale questionnaire, from 1 (very
bad) to 5 (very good), concerning the student’s perception of the following aspects of the
workshops (for the exact item wording see Fig. 6):
– organisation
– educational value
– engagement
– general appreciation/enjoyment.
These aspects are in line with the research background for the setting and the
potential of hands-on OSLeOs (Section 2.2), and the existing research about the
assessment of their presumed positive effects. The first group of items (“organisation”)
concerns the fact that learners should be enabled to understand the purpose and
activities of an OSLeO. Items were taken from Rennie (1994), with an additional
item from Orion et al. (1997). The second group of items is about whether the
educational potential offered by a hands-on OSLeO (see 2.1 and 2.2) is also perceived
by the students, as the perception of one’s own learning and increased competence is
a strongly motivating and cognitively activating factor. Items are again from Rennie
(1994) and Orion et al. (1997), with a supplementary item specific for Valentina and
Leo. The third group of items asks an analogous question for how well the engage-
ment potential of the intervention (see 2.1 and 2.2) was perceived. Items were taken
from an established and validated instrument, from a broad research program on
context-based science learning (Müller et al. 2009a; Kuhn 2010; Kuhn and Müller
2014; Vogt 2010; Weiss and Müller 2015; N ≈ 1700; αC in these studies from 0.86 to
Fig. 6 Workshop appreciation by students (in % of maximal value)

Organisation
2. J’ai bien compris les consignes de l’atelier (I understood the instructions for the workshop)
9. J’ai bien compris les objectifs de l’atelier (I understood the objectives of the workshop)
13. Avant l’atelier, nous avons reçu des informations suffisantes sur ce qui va se passer (before the workshop,
we received sufficient information on what was going to happen)
Educational value
1. L’atelier m’a permis de mieux comprendre comment vivaient les Hommes préhistoriques (the workshop
allowed me to better understand how prehistoric people lived)
5. L’atelier encourage à penser (the workshop made me think)
7. L’atelier m’a permis de mieux comprendre comment travaillent les archéologues (the workshop helped me
better understand how archaeologists work)
12. L’atelier aide à mieux comprendre les contenus des classes régulières (the workshop helped me understand
the contents of regular lessons)
Engagement
4. L’atelier m’a donné envie d’en savoir plus sur le travail des archéologues (the workshop made me want to
learn more about archaeologist’s work)
6. J’étais concentré(e) lors de l’atelier (I was focused during the workshop)
8. J’ai investi plus d’effort lors dans l’atelier que dans des cours réguliers (I invested more effort into the
workshop than in regular lessons)
10. J’ai participé activement à l’atelier (I actively participated in the workshop)
11. Les activités ont été intéressantes pour moi (the activities were interesting for me)
14. À la maison, j’aimerais chercher dans des livres, sur internet, etc. pour en savoir plus sur les thèmes de
l’atelier (at home, I’d like to look up in books, internet, etc. to know more about the themes of the workshop)
15. Aimerais-tu un autre atelier sur la préhistoire? (would you like another workshop on prehistory?)
General appreciation/enjoyment
3. J’ai bien aimé l’atelier (I liked the workshop)
0.94), in turn based on a large-sample physics interest study (Hoffmann et al. 1997;
N ≈ 10,000). The last aspect, “general appreciation”, completed by a “school grade”
(in the grading system familiar to the students, 1 = lowest, 6 = highest grade), was
included to complement the evaluation by some simple and overall questions, in order
to have an additional validation of the more differentiated, individual rating scale
items. To this was added one further question concerning the length of the workshop
(with 1 = too long, 2 = adequate, 3 = too short).
The cognitive part of the study had focused on the following aspects, in line with the project
objectives and the research background:
– learning about prehistoric life (common and specific to both workshops)

– conceptual learning related to prehistory and archaeology
– familiarisation with archaeology as a discipline and work (what an archaeologist does)
– understanding of the interdisciplinarity of archaeology, its interactions (as a discipline
between human and natural sciences) and other disciplines (such as ecology and climate
studies).
The evaluation in this domain consisted of a questionnaire with about a dozen items
(“prehistoric paintings”: 12, “bone awl”: 13), which were identical for the pre- and
post-questionnaires in order to probe for changes in students’ knowledge and under-
standing. Post-questionnaires had a few additional items in order to probe for factual
learning content about prehistoric life specific to both workshops (the first learning
component mentioned above). Item formats varied, often with a visual element
(mostly multiple true false, MTF, and rating scale multiple choice with four options,
MC4 (+ no answer option)). For the four central learning aspects of the project, the
expert team developed specific items, in line with the general objectives of the
project. Much care was taken in order to work with item formats accessible for the
M. Besse et al.
target age group, with a strong visual character and avoiding a purely textual multiple
choice format as much as possible. Moreover, the item formulations were checked for
comprehensibility by the primary school teaching experts in the team, and by a pilot
administration in two classes (N = 32).
4.3.3 Analysis
Statistical significance was analysed by t tests (dependant samples, for pre-post comparisons)
(SPSS, IBM Corp. 2013). Effect sizes, as a measure of practical relevance (Hattie 2009;
Wilkinson 1999), were computed as Cohen d (Cooper et al. 2009, ch. 15). While our analysis
is mainly quantitative, there are various qualitative data available which are used to further the
discussion.
5 Results
5.1 Affective Domain and Appreciation /Enjoyment
The four different aspects of both activities were generally well rated by students,
with averages (for both workshops together) between 80 and 90% of the maximal
value (organisation: 85%; educational value: 81%; engagement: 84%; general appre-
ciation: 94%; see Fig. 6). This is confirmed by the “school grade” of 5.5 for the
workshop (max. 6), and by replicating the finding (e.g. general appreciation: pilot test,
96%; PP workshop, 94%; BA workshop, 94%). The length of the intervention was
judged as adequate (2.2; scale: 1 = too long, 2 = adequate, 3 = too short). Finally, no
differences in these outcomes were found between girls and boys.
With respect to the educational value, the following individual results are relevant
to the central objectives of the V&L project: The workshop allowed me to better
understand how prehistoric people lived (86%); and The workshop helped me under-
stand how archaeologists work (84%). With respect to engagement, students’ percep-
tion was strongly positive regarding concentration (in the sense of on-task behaviour),
active participation (I was focused during the workshop, 88%; I actively participated
in the workshop, 93%), the interest raised by the activities (the activities were
interesting for me, 91%), and even to some extent the increased investment of effort
(I invested more effort into the workshop than in regular lessons, 73%). Finally, the
results indicated some impact going beyond the workshops: not only did the students
consider the workshops as useful for their regular learning (the workshop helped me
understand the contents of regular lessons, 74%), but they would like to extend their
learning at home (at home, I’d like to look up in books, internet, etc. to know more
about the topics of the workshop, 73%).
5.2 Cognitive Domain
In this section, the findings for each of the four aspects of the cognitive part of the study are
presented (learning about prehistoric life—specific to each workshop; conceptual learning/
change; archaeology as a discipline and work, understanding of the interdisciplinarity of
archaeology).
5.2.1 Knowledge About Prehistoric Life
A first item group concerning the “prehistoric painting” workshop was related to one of the
central research objectives of archaeology, namely to learn about the way of life of prehistoric
people. Specifically, this item was about where they lived, and with what resources (see
Fig. 7a). As is shown, there is a considerable increase in correct knowledge, more specifically
that people lived in tents and in the entrances of caves, but not at their far ends (p < 0.001, d =
1.1, 0.94, 0.91, respectively), and that they lived on hunting, fishing and gathering (p < 0.001,
d = 0.46). It is noteworthy that for the question whether the place of living was at the entrance
or the far end of the caves, there is a clear sign of “unlearning” an incorrect idea, and replacing
it with the correct one; the majority changed from slightly favouring (56%) the (incorrect) “far
end” option before the workshop (possibly because of thinking that it is the safer place, but this
remains to be validated) to strongly favouring the (correct) entrance option afterwards (82%).
This can be considered a case of “conceptual change”, a kind of learning impact of the
workshops to which we will return in 5.2.2. Some incorrect ideas were already low in presence
before the workshops (< 20%), which did not significantly increase them. Moreover, very few
students did not have an opinion about the question (< 10%).
Another item group about an essential knowledge element of the other workshop concerned
the function of the awl (such as the one created by students of the second workshop; see
example in Fig. 8). Again, there was a considerable increase in correct knowledge, for all
functions in which an awl had been used in prehistoric life, piercing hides and bark, and as s
sewing aid (Fig. 8b; p < 0.001, d = 0.58, 0.60, 0.80, respectively). There was no significant
change regarding the function “decorating objects”, for which students had already answered
correctly before the workshop (no; > 80%).
A third item group was about which kind of different materials would be preserved through
time. Here, a highly significant and practically relevant improvement was found for sewing
thread, where initially only a minority of students gave the correct answer (yes; change from
40 to 60%, p < 0.01, d = 0.39). For other materials (skin, bone, flint), there was a high level of
correct knowledge prior to the workshop (≈ 65–90%), which did not further improve with the
activities.
Finally, regarding the understanding of chronology, a strong majority of students achieved
an acceptable understanding. This was measured through an item asking students to arrange
four scenes (middle Palaeolithic, upper Palaeolithic, Bronze Age, Roman times) in the right
Fig. 7 a Item on lifestyle of prehistoric people. b Results (% of yes answers; pre-test (left) and post-test (right)
M. Besse et al.
chronological order (correct/incorrect/no answer = 56/21/23% after the second workshop; this
item was not included in the pre-questionnaire in order to limit total test time). Other items
regarding the passage of time (and the important changes it might provoke) concerned
materials preserved through time (or not), the kind of animals represented in cave paintings,
the changes compared to today, and climate change.
There were several other cases, where the pre-post changes showed an increase in students’
knowledge and understanding, but were statistically not significant, e.g. “Is it possible to know
the life of prehistoric people”, or “According to you, what kind of information can be inferred
from prehistoric paintings: animal species/how people looked like/tools/weather/way of life/
beliefs and religion/nothing”. In some of these cases, we have indications that individual items
should be improved (see discussion, Section 6).
5.2.2 Conceptual Learning About Prehistory
In view of the value of the intervention on the one hand, and its limited duration on the other
hand, the Valentina and Leo team decided to focus on some conceptual aspects, considered to
be particularly important:
(a) Kinds of animals represented, and their changes (PP workshop)
The main issue discussed here was whether students have an understanding that there can be
long-term changes in the kinds of animals living in a given area, mainly due to climatic
changes, and thus of the animals which can be known to and painted by humans in the same
area. Changes, in particular, mean that the kinds of animals appearing in cave paintings can be
quite different from the animals one finds nowadays in the same area. As Table 2 shows, there
is a marked increase of correct answers by the students, including for animals which no longer
live in our area (e.g. rhinoceros and penguin; for the latter, the largest increase occurs). These
changes are highly statistically significant (p < 10−3) and with effect sizes from medium to
large (0.50 < d < 0.82). The change for ibex is less pronounced than for the other animals.
(b) Dinosaur misconception
a b
100.00
80.00
% of yes pre…
% of yes post…
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
Fig. 8 a Item on bone awl function. b Results (% of yes answers; pre and post-test)
The case of dinosaurs, however, represents a marked exception to the findings regarding the
other animals. More than 50% of the students believe that prehistoric people could have
painted dinosaurs, and this belief was not changed by the workshops.
(c) Brute caveman stereotype
Our findings show that this stereotype is also considerably present in our sample; 70–75%
answer “rather yes” or “yes” (item averages 3.0–3.2. for the four measurement times, for
which no significant differences were found), and few students do not have an opinion about
the question (≤ 5% for all four measurement times). This is supported by the results of another
item (see Fig. 9) according to which most students saw prehistoric man as ugly, dirty and
violent (69, 69, 52%, respectively); on the other hand, most students also saw him as clever
(52%; consistently, few as stupid: 29%), and again few students do not have an opinion about
the question (6%). The preceding values are the averages over all the four measurement times,
for which no significant differences were found.
Misconceptions about “garbage” and stereotypes about archaeologist stereotypes are treated
in the next section.
5.2.3 Learning About Archaeologists and Archaeology as a Scientific Discipline
The main objectives of the study include creating a reliable image of archaeologists and their
work, the questions asked (and those not), the objects of study and the way scientific work is
undertaken within the discipline. The V&L team had decided to probe for students’ ideas
about several of these aspects, but not directly about the “Indiana Jones stereotype”, as the film
series was deemed not to be sufficiently well-known among primary school students in
Geneva. We report the results of this evaluation component in two formats: first, about the
extent to which certain relevant ideas (including stereotyped ones) are present in the target
group (percentage values); second, about whether there were changes regarding these ideas
induced by the workshops and the learning opportunity they offered (significance level and
effect size values, as in the preceding sections).
A group of items asked for specific features of the “Indiana Jones” stereotype for an
archaeologist (without mentioning the name or referring to the films). Indeed, such features were
quite widespread among the students. They thought that archaeologists search for precious objects
(74%), travel in faraway countries (68%), be described as adventurers (64%) and even fight with
strange creatures (34%). They also thought, however, that they can just as well be a woman (as
46%) or a man (48%). These values did not show a significant change throughout the workshops
(the values reported are the averages over all measuring times).
Table 2 Proportions of positive answers to the item “Do you think that prehistoric people could have made these
paintings? (x/− means that a given animal was shown in the workshop, or not)
% yes Mammoth Penguin Rhinoceros Steinbock (ibex) Dinosaur Owl
Workshop x x x x – x
Pre 0.77 0.51 0.65 0.67 0.54 0.62
Post 0.94 0.80 0.87 0.77 0.56 0.81
p < 10–3 < 10–3 < 10–3 0.07 0.74 < 10–3
Cohen d 0.82 0.72 0.67 0.25 – 0.50
M. Besse et al.
Another item group probed what students thought of as typical work for an archaeologist
(Fig. 10) and whether this would change under the influence of the workshops. The following
results are the post-test values of the PP workshops (there were no further appreciable changes
in the BA workshop). (a) The component “scientific research” is well represented (87%). But
two other components are under-represented in the students’ perceptions, namely literature
research (20%) and fieldwork (17%). Students did not strongly associate these aspects to the
work of an archaeologist, even after the workshops, and very few did not have an opinion
about this question (≤ 10% both workshops). (b) The contact with archaeology offered by the
project produced significant changes towards a more complete vision (literature search: p =
0.009, d = 0.31; fieldwork: p = 0.04, d = 0.46; pre-post increases in first, PP workshop; no
further appreciable changes in second workshop).
A third aspect of specific interest was the understanding of the well-known scientific value
of garbage in archaeology (see Section 2.3). Our results show that, even before the workshop,
there was a good understanding of the fact that garbage can help to understand how people
lived in the past (54%), and even to some extent to know what they ate (32%); but almost as
many students did not have an opinion (28%). The workshop then improved understanding
about this, however only slightly (what prehistoric people ate: 40%, p = 0.06 (marginally
significant), d = 0.20) and stabilised it (no opinion: 18%, p = 0.003, d = 0.30).
b 90
80
pre
70
post
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
pierce skin decorate objectssewing aid pierce bark
Fig. 9 a Typical illustration corresponding to the “brute caveman” stereotype (public domain, Wikimedia 2018)
as used in the following item: Does this picture correspond to how you imagine a prehistoric man? b Another
item probing for the mental representation of prehistoric Man: Circle the adjectives that, according to you,
describe prehistoric Man. You can also add other adjectives
5.2.4 Learning About Interactions of Archaeology and Other Disciplines

(Interdisciplinarity)
A first interaction of this kind (cave paintings informing about changes in animal diversity) was
already presented above. Another example is the important link between archaeology and climate
studies, with the following results (Fig. 11): A majority of students already knew that the climate
20,000–30,000 years ago was not similar to today, but were undecided about the type of change:
colder, with glaciers (28%; correct) or warmer, with tropical weather (25%; incorrect). The
workshop led to a reinforcement of correct statements (colder climate, glaciers, lower sea level;
p < 0.001 in all cases, d = 0.83, 1.1, 0.69, respectively), and the reduction of incorrect ones
(warmer, tropical climate, p < 0.001 in both cases; d = 0.63, 0.89, respectively). Moreover, the
number of students believing that there was no change diminished (p = 0.04; d = 0.54), as well as
the number of students who indicate having “no opinion” on the subject (p = 0.001, d = 0.43).
6 Discussion
6.1 Affective Domain and Appreciation
Students’ feedback regarding engagement, educational value and general appreciation/

enjoyment (research question 1) was positive to very positive throughout (in % of maximal
value, 73 to 94% for individual items, ≈ 80 to 90% for averages). The value obtained for
general appreciation (94%) confirms the high potential of OSLeOs for creating an enjoyable
learning experience known from previous research (see 2.2).
As for organisation, the length of the intervention (90–120 minutes) was judged to be
adequate, with a slight tendency in favour of longer workshops—a desirable result for the
project. The only point to be improved appears to be the information provided before the
workshop. The perception of this item is the only organisational aspect below 80% (Before the
workshop, we received sufficient information on what was going to happen, 77%), and
adequate preparation of an out-of-school learning offer is a core element of one of the leading
educational theories in this area (novelty space theory, Orion 1993; Orion and Hofstein 1994).
As for educational value, two individual results are noteworthy in view of the central
objectives of the V&L project: The workshop allowed me to better understand how prehistoric
people lived (86%) and the workshop helped me understand how archaeologists work (84%).
Note that the positive perception of the students about these aspects of the educational value is
supported by considerable, closely related learning effects found in both domains (see Sections
5.2 and 5.3). Two more individual results open up an interesting perspective, which could be
termed “effects beyond” (i.e. beyond the workshops). First, students would like to extend their
learning at home (at home, I would like to look up in books, internet, etc. to know more about
the topics of the workshop; 73%); second, they perceived the workshops as support for regular
learning (the workshop helped me understand the contents of regular lessons, 74%).
The first finding is worth noting as an indication of active learning and the willingness to
invest an effort, the latter being considered as a strong indicator of interest (Swarat et al. 2012),
especially in the framework of models where when a cognitive evaluation of motivational
aspects by the individual takes place (Boekaerts 2006; Rheinberg et al. 2000). The second
finding is in line with existing research emphasising the link between out-of-school learning
offers and regular classroom learning (Anderson and Zhang 2003; Fallik et al. 2013; Orion
M. Besse et al.
Fig. 10 a Question on archaeology as work. b Results (% of answers; pre and post-test)
1993; Orion and Hofstein 1994); in the case of the V&L project, we find evidence that such a
link was successfully established.
An additional factor of particular interest for the intervention presented here—dealing with
prehistoric life and archaeology via with authentic objects, art (prehistoric painting) and a
storytelling framework (Valentina and Leo)—could be that it helps to foster a “romantic
understanding” of science.4 This includes affective aspects like imagination, aesthetic experi-
ence, sense of wonder and personal involvement, completing conceptual and logical modes of
thinking in science learning in an important way (Hadzigeorgiou 2005; Hampp and Schwan
2015). These aspects have been widely discussed in the context of science education, in
particular for younger children (Girod and Wong 2002; Kokkotas and Rizaki 2011; Murmann
and Avraamidou 2016), and even shown to be at work in secondary-level students
b
100
80 pre
60 post
40
20
0
Fig. 11 a Question on climate. b Results (% of answers; pre- and post-tests)
(Hadzigeorgiou and Schulz 2017). While an investigation of this line of thought was not in the
scope of the present study, we feel that it represents an important approach for further research
and development of interventions like Valentina and Leo.
6.2 Cognitive Domain
In view of the four cognitive aspects of the project objectives (research question 2: learning
about prehistoric life, conceptual learning/change related to prehistory and archaeology,
familiarisation with archaeology as a discipline and work, understanding the interdisciplinarity
of archaeology), there were findings supporting a positive impact of the intervention. Consid-
erable effects where found regarding several elements of scientific literacy addressed in the
workshops (e.g. where and with what resources prehistoric people lived; medium to large
effect sizes: d ≈ 0.5 and 0.9–1.1, respectively). Large gains were also found for another item
group about the function of the awl as an essential knowledge element of the other workshop.
Again, there was a considerable increase of correct knowledge, for all functions in which an
awl had been used in prehistoric life (d ≈ 0.6–0.8).
As for conceptual learning, results showed a differentiated pattern, which we would like to
discuss. Quite strong indications were found regarding improved understanding of the long-
term changes on the kind of animals which live in a given area, mainly due to climatic
M. Besse et al.
changes. Effect sizes were medium to large for four out of five animals treated in the workshop
and asked for in the test (owl, mammoth, rhinoceros, penguin; d ≈ 0.5–0.8). Note that this
voluntarily included animals which do not live in our area any longer, for which the largest
changes occurred (rhinoceros, penguin). For the mammoth, there was the highest level of
initial knowledge, which might be due to influences by popular culture (film series like “Ice
Age”, etc.). For the remaining animal (ibex), the effect was less pronounced (marginally
significant), a result for which we do not have an explanation.
Dinosaurs are a special case, in the sense that the idea that “cavemen” lived at the same time
as the dinosaurs is a classical misconception, well studied for more than two decades. Research
(Schoon 1993) has shown a considerable prevalence among students (32% among 5th graders,
USA) and even adult university students (20% pre-service, non-science teachers). Among the
latter population (undergraduate non-science students), 25% of the time, the dinosaur extinc-
tion is thought of as occurring ≤ 600,000 years ago, i.e. well within the existence of prehistoric
human beings on Earth (Catley and Novick 2009). Our findings align well with this state of
affairs, since more than 50% of the students (age group roughly comparable to that of the US
study, Schoon 1993) believed that prehistoric people could have painted dinosaurs. This belief
was not changed by the workshops, which is also consistent with the well-known persistence
(stability) of preconceptions (Pine et al. 2001; Shtulman and Valcarcel 2012; Stavy and Tirosh
2015). This is particularly true in the case of interventions not specifically focussed on
conceptual change (which in our workshops was not the case for the dinosaur misconception),
leading to very little chances to achieve the desired learning progress. It should be noted,
however, that the item in its present form does not directly ask about the co-existence of
dinosaurs and prehistoric man. This is due to the decision to include many visual items
for the target age group and to relate them to the content of the workshop. On the other
hand, the association of the item answer with the co-existence conception is plausible,
but not entirely unambiguous—a point to be improved in the future.
In a similar vein, our findings showed that the “brute caveman” stereotype is also notably
present in our sample, (70–75% “rather yes” or “yes”), which is consistent with the findings of
another item about some stereotypical features (Feder 2008) of this kind about prehistoric man
(ugly, dirty and violent: 69, 69, 52%, respectively). Surprisingly, most students also saw
prehistoric man as clever (52%). Children were quite decided about these points (no opinion ≈
5%), and their beliefs were not changed by the workshops, which had not addressed this
stereotype explicitly (the preceding values are the averages over all four measurement times).
Even though the students had learned about things like ingenuity (BA workshop) and even
artistic expression (PP workshop) of prehistoric man, this alone was not sufficient to change an
obviously deep-seated stereotype.
Note that the workshop did not address the dinosaur misconception and the brute caveman
stereotype explicitly, nor did they aim to change them. The reason for including an item about
these learning difficulties was to answer the question of whether one could replicate earlier
findings (prevalence, persistence) for the target group of the study, and thus to know whether
they should be included in future extensions of the workshops.
We now discuss the third of the cognitive objectives, learning about the archaeologist as a
person and about the work they do (archaeology as a discipline). As for the person of an
archaeologist, we again find the phenomenon of persistence (stability), for specific features of
the “Indiana Jones” stereotype, i.e. that conceptual change without explicitly dedicated
0
We thank one of the reviewers for having drawn our attention to this strand of research
learning opportunities (and sometimes even with) is not probable: such stereotypical features
were quite widespread, and did not significantly change throughout the workshops (association
with a search for precious objects, travel in faraway countries and adventure were present for
roughly 2/3 of the students, both before and after the workshops).
As for the work, the project was able to produce changes towards a more complete vision of
archaeology. These improvements (effect sizes ≈ 0.3 and 0.5 for the components of literature
research and fieldwork) are less pronounced than those for several instances of conceptual
learning (compare with 5.2.2), but they concern a less tangible domain, less directly linked to
the topics of the workshops, and therefore more difficult for students to grasp within the
available time (≤ 120 minutes). In these circumstances, the observed changes appear
encouraging.
Finally, for an understanding of the scientific value of garbage for archaeology (see
Section 2.3), the project was also able to produce an improvement. Again, these improvements
correspond to effect sizes (e.g. d ≈ 0.3 of how many students did not have an opinion at all
about this and d ≈ 0.2 for how garbage can inform us about life in the past) smaller than those
of learning about specific contents (5.2.1). But the (archaeological) value of garbage is not an
obvious idea to understand, and there could be a strong misconception here for two reasons.
First, the notions of garbage and value in everyday experience are by definition opposite to
each other, and second, there is the “precious object” idea strongly linked to the “Indiana
Jones” stereotype, as discussed above. Thus, while the effects found are not large, they concern
conceptual learning, where considerable obstacles could be expected and occurred after the
short 90–120-minute duration of the workshops. This is therefore to be interpreted as an
encouraging result.
A comment about potential “gendered” perceptions is in order. When asking for different
aspects of archaeology as work (Fig. 10), the “adventure” aspect became more present after the
workshops (p = 0.001; d ≈ 0.4). It is worth noting that an increase could be induced by the
contact with a true (female) archaeologist, a presentation of her work, and of course the
workshop, instead of viewing an Indiana Jones movie. Moreover, even though we found
several features of the “Indiana Jones” stereotype in the perceptions of the students, this was
not associated with a stereotypical gender bias. An interesting question for future investiga-
tions could be to find out whether this is because a female archaeologist had held the
workshops.
A fourth main objective of the workshops was to point out how archaeology encompasses
the humanities, cultural studies and the natural sciences, and that there are important interac-
tions between all three. One example is conclusions that can be drawn from cave paintings: as
cultural objects, about animal diversity, as biological and ecological phenomena. The findings
showed a considerable improvement of students’ understanding of this aspect, as already
discussed above. Another important example of this kind of interactions studied in the V&L
project is the discussion regarding climate change and the necessity to know—as a
comparison—about historical climates. In this case, archaeology becomes a source of essential
information. The findings (reinforcement of correct knowledge, d ≈ 0.7–1.1; reduction of
incorrect knowledge, d ≈ 0.5–0.9) showed a significant and practically relevant improvement
on the understanding of this topic.
There is a close link of the facets of “archaeology as discipline” (e.g. its interdisciplinarity)
to the topic of “Nature of Science” in science education (McComas 1998; Flick and Lederman
2006).). Even though not addressed explicitly in the present project, this could be a promising
component of future development, in particular for aspects like the interplay of hypothesis and
M. Besse et al.
evidence (Martins and Silva 2001; Simonyi 2012; Heering and Höttecke 2014), the role of
critical thinking and argumentation in view of the multi-faceted and sometimes conflicting
nature of evidence (Achinstein 2001; Erduran and Jiménez-Aleixandre 2008; Hitchcock and
Verheij 2010; Hodson 2014), and more.
6.3 General Discussion: Project Objectives and Research Questions
Summarising the above findings, one can conclude that the Valentina and Leo workshops had
sizeable positive effects on both affective and cognitive variables of the students, in line with
the project’s objectives and the research questions formulated. Moreover, no difference was
found between girls and boys; the workshops appeared suitable for both genders. Effect sizes
range from small (for several kinds of conceptual obstacles) to large effects (knowledge about
prehistoric life, conceptual learning). Table 3 summarises the results on affective and cognitive
variables in view of the project objectives and related research questions. Together, the data
support the conclusion that positive effects for most objectives of the project could be
achieved.
We now turn to the limitations and future improvements of the study. In some cases, results
indicate that individual items should be improved. One item not well understood by the
students was a question on animal parts (Fig. 12). It had been included in order to go beyond
purely text-based, closed-answer formats, but students did not succeed well in giving answers
in this form of graphical representation. These cases deserve further reflection for a future
improvement of the methodology, which was not possible within the limitations of the project.
Another limitation is that no statements about long-term effects can be made based on the
present study. As Rennie (1994) put it, in view of affective outcomes, a short intervention like
the one presented here, “is more likely to raise students’ awareness about science [and]
scientists”, and not so much “to result in a fundamental change of attitude”. For cognitive
outcomes, we found indeed indications of the “improved development and integration of
concepts” stated by Braund and Reiss (2006) as one of the positive impacts of OSLeOs on
scientific literacy. Whether these effects will lead to a long-term increase of knowledge and
understanding remains an open question, in particular in view of the persistence and “resil-
ience” of misconceptions, stereotypes and other non-scientific intuitions (Shtulman and
Valcarcel 2012; Stavy and Tirosh 2015).
7 Conclusions and Perspectives
Even though this is not a research project in its own right (which would typically require a year
or more of instrument development and validation, a pilot study, etc.), we would like to
mention that there are interesting and useful perspectives for improvement on the methodo-
logical level. Examples are shortening or reformulating some aspects, probing deeper (e.g. for
the dinosaur misconception, cf. 5.2.2) or extending others (e.g. an item about the pace of the
workshops), or more items about historical, pre-historical and geological time scales, a topic of
particular difficulty for students (Dodick and Orion 2006; Catley and Novick 2009). With
respect to conceptual learning, a broader inclusion of qualitative methods appears as highly
interesting (e.g. making students draw an archaeologist, as an analogy to existing studies about
children’s drawings of scientists; Painter et al. 2006), but we emphasise again that this was not
possible within the objectives and constraints of the present project. Second, and central to the
Table 3 Resume of findings in view of the objectives of the Valentina and Leo project. Percentage values are degrees of consent relative to the maximal value, or prevalence values (of
stereotypes, etc., given as % yes), effect sizes are Cohen d values for the pre-post comparisons
1. Fostering active participation and engagement of students to learn about prehistory and archaeology Result
I actively participated in the workshop 93%
The activities were interesting for me 91%
Would you like another workshop on prehistory? 90%
other findings:
The workshop made me want to learn more about the archaeologist’s work 83%
I was focused during the workshop 88%
I invested more effort into the workshop than in regular lessons 73%
At home, I’d like to look up in books, internet, etc. to know more about the topics of the workshop 73%
2. Knowledge about prehistoric life
Affective domain and appreciation
The workshop allowed me to better understand how prehistoric people lived 86%
Cognitive domain
where/with what resources prehistoric people lived; strongly improved ≥ 0.9/0.46
usages of bone awl in prehistoric life (piercing hides and bark/sewing aid; strongly improved) ≈ 0.6/0.8
3. Conceptual learning about prehistory
kinds of represented animals: (owl, mammoth, rhinoceros, penguin); medium to strongly improved 0.5–0.8
“dinosaur” misconception: strongly present; not changed (but also not addressed in the workshop) 50–55%
“brute caveman” stereotype: strongly present; not changed (but also not addressed in the workshop) 70–75%
prehistoric man as ugly/dirty/violent; not changed (but also not addressed) 69/69/52%
understanding of the scientific value of garbage for archaeology, slightly improved 0.2–0.3
4. Learning about archaeologists and archaeology as scientific discipline
Affective domain and appreciation: The workshop helped me understand how archaeologists work 84%
Cognitive domain:
“Indiana Jones”-like stereotypes strongly present (precious objects/ faraway countries/adventurer); not changed* 74/68/64%
components of the work of the archaeologist:
“scientific research” well represented, literature research, fieldwork strongly under-represented 87/20/18%
literature research, fieldwork improved (in first, “painting” workshop; no further changes in second workshop) 0.31, 0.46
5. Learning about interactions of archaeology and other disciplines (interdisciplinarity)
kinds of represented animals (cultural objects—animal diversity); strongly improved, see point 3. above 0.5–0.8
climate and its changes; strongly improved (enhancement of correct knowledge, reduction of incorrect knowledge) 0.4–0.8
6. Link with regular curriculum/teaching
The workshop helped me to understand the contents of regular lessons 74%
M. Besse et al.
b
70
60 pre
50 post
40
30
20
10
0
Fig. 12 An item which was not well understood by many students
project, is the feedback given by participants about Valentina and Leo. As discussed in the
preceding section, appreciation and impact of the project on both affective and cognitive levels
can be considered encouraging, and it is desirable for it to have a future. What can be
concluded about this possible future from the available analysis?
In Fig. 13, we complement the discussion above with the reasons that teachers gave in
favour of a generalisation of the Valentina and Leo offer to other classes (other teacher data
Fig. 13 Why a generalisation to other classes would be desirable (reasons given by teachers)
will be reported elsewhere). Beyond the practical aspects of links to the curriculum (or official
examinations) and the quality of an offer which would otherwise be impossible to carry out at
school, teachers most often mention the playful, practical, concrete and “tactile” character of
the activities. Moreover, teachers took up several central elements of the workshops in their
suggestions for possible extensions, such as the use of tools for the production of jewellery or
clothes (such as in the bone awl workshop), and settlements and diet as other essential aspects
of the prehistoric life. Finally, there were even suggestions for an extension to other historical
periods (e.g. ancient Egypt, medieval times).
In view of a repeated statement about the importance of links to the curriculum and
concerning first the literature (Anderson and Zhang 2003; Eshach 2007), and, second, another
group of statements about the value of “vision different from school learning” (and related
statements about creativity, originality, etc.), one might wonder if these points of view are not
contradictory. We see in the Valentina and Leo workshop an example that this is not
necessarily the case. Showing creativity, originality, a “vision” for a given topic related to
but going beyond the curriculum and regular school teaching is not only possible, but has very
promising features, and potential to foster students’ engagement and learning.
Even though it was not among the research questions of the project, it is obvious
that these activities favour the dialogue between students and the specialist that
answers their questions. These exchanges allow for a complementary viewpoint on
the things learned in regular classes. The possibility to be active, to touch archaeo-
logical objects and to create similar ones allows for a constant and rich exchange
between the student and the scientist. An underlying objective of this entire project
was to bring the student to develop a critical mind, since this is a key component of
the scientific method. It is important that students examine data, and discuss, compare
and interpret it. In this way, they are able to question an interpretation if they can
argue their point. Archaeology is therefore a discipline that can be used to illustrate
scientific thinking in the sense that archaeologists observe facts and interpret them by
formulating hypotheses on past lifestyles. The workshops demonstrate this methodol-
ogy, since the students imitate the gestures and fabrication method of prehistoric man,
while being provided with a reference framework of prehistoric knowledge. They are
brought to think about and discuss the conclusions that can be then made about this
prehistoric man. This experimental method is used in actual archaeological research; it
has allowed for numerous subdisciplines to retain certain hypotheses as more plausi-
ble, and to understand some prehistoric lifestyles, whether concerning the creation of
certain objects (Pétrequin and Pétrequin 2000), the learning processes implied or the
transfer of techniques (Roux 2003).
To summarise, it appears that the Valentina and Leo workshops had considerable
positive outcomes for enjoyment, engagement, perception of educational value and other
affective aspects. It also improved cognitive aspects, such as conceptual learning/change
related to prehistory and archaeology, and learning about archaeological research at the
intersection of the natural sciences and humanities. These outcomes and the results
discussed in the present paper provide a promising basis for further improvement and
extension. They were obtained in the framework of a university-school cooperation of
archaeology and science education experts and of teachers and school authorities, and of
a limited financial support for development, delivery and evaluation of the workshops.
As such, the project could serve as a useful example for similar externally funded,
cooperative projects in other domains of science education.
M. Besse et al.
Acknowledgements The project was supported by Matteo Gios, technical assistant, Marisa Andosilla, secre-
tary, and Eva Gutscher, graphic artist, at the Laboratory of Prehistoric Archaeology and Anthropology at the
University of Geneva, and the teachers who hosted the project in their classes: Stefano Croci, Jean-Philippe
Hulliger, Nelly Rautenstrauch, Marie-Armelle Dumitrescu, Cédric Schorno, Andrée Maret, Anne Metroz, from
school De Livron; Virginie Hübschi-Ley, Eveline Langer, Sarah Pena, Isabelle Friedli, from school Champs-
Fréchets; Antonella Pollo, Joëlle Allaman, Marc Rickenbacher, Séverine De Cocatrix, Sandra Cambi, Sylviane
Hufschmid from school Ami-Argand.
Authors Contributions Marie Besse and Martine Piguet: conception, realisation and lead of the project; Sarah
Fragnière: development and administration of questionnaires, data analysis, contributions to methodology and
discussion of findings; Andreas Müller: general and science education background of the project, development of
questionnaires, methodology and discussion of findings; Laurent Dubois: didactic expert for primary school;
Dominique Miéville and Suzanne Schoeb: coordination with primary school teachers, selection of classes, links
with the study plan; Delphine Schumacher: expertise in defining learning goals.
Funding Information The project was supported by the Swiss National Foundation in the framework of the
Agora program (FNS CRAGI1_145643/1), the Mercator Foundation.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and repro-
duction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a
link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
References
AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (1990). Science for all Americans. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Achinstein, P. (2001). The book of evidence. Oxford University Press.
Affolter, J. (2002). Provenance des silex préhistoriques du Jura et des régions limitrophes. Archéologie
Neuchâteloise, 28(2).
Anderson, D., & Zhang, Z. (2003). Teacher perceptions of field-trip planning and implementation. Visitor Studies
Today, 6(3), 6–11.
Boekaerts, M. (2006). Self-regulation and effort investment. In E. Sigel & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of
child psychology, Vol. 4 (pp. 345–377). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: the contribution of out-of-school
learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1373–1388.
Brazell, B. D., & Espinoza, S. (2009). Meta-analysis of planetarium efficacy research. Astronomy Education
Review, 8(1).
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Brunsell, E., & Fleming, M. A. (2014). Engaging minds in science and math classrooms: the surprising power of
joy. Alexandria: ASCD.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: from purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
CAISE (Centre for Advancement of Informal Science Education). (2010). Making science matter: collaborations
between informal science education organizations and schools. A CAISE inquiry group report. Washington,
DC: Centre for Advancement of Informal Science Education.
Calove, & Gomila. (2009). Handbook of cognitive science: an embodied approach. Amsterdam: Elsevier ch18.
Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics
with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380.
Catley, K. M., & Novick, L. R. (2009). Digging deep: exploring college students’ knowledge of macroevolu-
tionary time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 311–332.
Chaix, L., & Méniel, P. (2001). Archéozoologie. Les animaux et l’archéologie. Paris: Errance.
Chi, M. T. H., & Roscoe, R. D. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limón & L.
Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: issues in theory and practice (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
CIIP, Conférence intercantonale de l’instruction publique de la Suisse romande et du Tessin (2010–2016): Plan
d’Etudes Romand (PER). Retrieved on 8/5/2017 from http://www.plandetudes.ch/web/guest/sciences-de-la-
nature and http://www.plandetudes.ch/web/guest/SHS_22/.
Clottes, J. (2001). La grotte Chauvet: l’art des origines. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-
analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Cripps Clark, J., Tytler, R., & Symington, D. (2014). School-community collaborations: bringing authentic
science into schools. Teaching Science, 60(3), 26–32.
Dodick, J., & Orion, N. (2006). Building an understanding of geological time: a cognitive synthesis of the
"macro" and "micro" scales of time. In C. A. Manduca & D. W. Mogk (Eds.), Earth and mind: how
geologists think and learn about the earth: Geological Society of America (pp. 77-93). Boulder, Colorado.
Dörfler, W. (2000). Means for meaning. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & K. Mc Clain (Eds.), Symbolizing and
communicating in mathematics classrooms. Perspectives on discourse, tools and instructional design (pp.
99–132). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
EDK/CDIP (2015). Objectifs nationaux de formation. Retrieved on 8/5/2017 from http://www.edudoc.
ch/static/web/arbeiten/harmos/grundkomp_faktenblatt_f.pdf.
Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from
classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.
Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: formal, non-formal, and informal education.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(2), 171–190.
Euler, M. (2004). Quality development: challenges to physics education. In E. F. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International School of Physics, “Enrico Fermi” course CLVI. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Euler, M. (2005). Hands-on science and informal learning: challenge and potentials of authentic lab activities. In
G. Planinšič & A. Mohorič (Eds.), Informal learning and public understanding of physics, 3th International
GIREP Seminar, Ljubljana (selected contributions). Antwerp: GIREP (Groupe international de recherche sur
l’enseignement de la physique).
Euler, M. (2007). Neugier, Kreativität, Kompetenzförderung. Schülerlabore in Deutschland. Erfolgsgeschichte &
Herausforderungen. Retrieved on 8/5/2017 from http://www.dlr.de/schoollab/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-
4507/7380_read-8441.
Falk, J. H., Randol, S., & Dierking, L. D. (2008). The informal science education landscape: a preliminary
investigation. Washington, DC: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education. Retrieved on 8/5/
2017 from http://informalscience.org/informal-science-education-landscape-preliminary-investigation
Fallik, O., Rosenfeld, S., & Eylon, B.-S. (2013). School and out-of-school science: a model for bridging the gap.
Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 69–91.
Feder, K. L. (2008). Frauds, myths, and mysteries: science and pseudoscience in archaeology. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Scientific inquiry and nature of science: implications for teaching,
learning, and teacher education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Fucili, L. (2005). Implementing astronomy education research. In J. M. Pasachoff & J. R. Percy (Eds.), Teaching
and learning astronomy. Effective strategies for educators worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Fujimura, N. (2001). Facilitating children’s proportional reasoning: a model of reasoning processes and effects of
intervention on strategy change. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 589–603.
Furinghetti, F., Maros, J. M., & Menghini, M. (2013). From mathematics and education, to mathematics
education. In M. A. Clements, A. J. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Third
international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 273–302). New York: Springer-Verlag New York
Inc..
Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of
inquiry-based science teaching. A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 9(1), 300–329.
Galili, I. (2012). Promotion of cultural content knowledge through the use of the history and philosophy of
science. Science & Education, 21(9), 1283–1316.
Gamble, C. (1994). The peopling of Europe, 700,000-40,000 years before the present. In B. Cunliffe (Ed.), The
Oxford illustrated prehistory of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
M. Besse et al.
Girod, M., & Wong, D. (2002). An aesthetic (Deweyan) perspective on science learning: case studies of three
fourth graders. The Elementary School Journal, 102(3), 199–224.
Gotshalk-Stine, A. (2011). Understanding archaeological misconceptions among college students (Doctoral
dissertation). Long Beach: California State University.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2005). Romantic understanding and science education. Teaching Education, 16(1), 23–32.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y., & Schulz, R. M. (2017). What really makes secondary school students “want” to study
physics? Education Sciences, 7(4), 84.
Hampp, C., & Schwan, S. (2015). The role of authentic objects in museums of the history of science and
technology: findings from a visitor study. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 5(2), 161–
181.
Hattie, A. C. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London:
Routledge.
Häussler, P., Bünder, W., Duit, R., Gräber, W., & Mayer, J. (1998). Naturwissenschaftsdidaktische Forschung:
Perspektiven für die Unterrichtspraxis. Kiel: Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften.
Heering, P., & Höttecke, D. (2014). Historical-investigative approaches in science teaching. In M. R. Matthews
(Eds.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1473–1502).
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Hellstrom, J. (2012). Absolute dating of cave art. Science, 333, 1387–1388.
Hitchcock, D., & Verheij, B. (2010). Arguing on the Toulmin model: new essays in argument analysis and
evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hodson, D. (2014). Nature of science in the science curriculum: origin, development, implications and shifting
emphases. In R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science
teaching (pp. 911–970). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hoffmann, L., Häußler, P., & Peters-Haft, S. (1997). An den Interessen von Mädchen und Jungen orientierter
Physikunterricht. Ergebnisse eines BLK-Modellversuches. Kiel: IPN.
Horard-Herbin, M.-P., & Vigne, J.-D. (2006). Animaux, environnement et sociétés, collection « archéologiques ».
Paris: Éditions Errance.
IBM Corp. (2013). IBM SPSS, version 22.0. Armonk: IBM Corp.
Impey, C. (2010). Science education in the age of science. In J. Meinwald & J. G. Hildebrand (Eds.), Science and
the educated American: a core component of liberal education. Cambridge: American Academy of Arts and
Sciences.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1959). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York:
Basic.
Jarman, R., & McClune, B. (2007). Developing scientific literacy. Using news media in the classroom.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Jones, A. L., & Stapleton, M. K. (2017). 1.2 million kids and counting—mobile science laboratories drive
student interest in STEM. PLoS Biology, 15(5), e2001692.
Kaeser, M.-A. (2008). Visions d’une civilisation engloutie: La représentation des villages lacustres, de 1854 à
nos jours / Ansichten einer versunkenen. Welt: Die Darstellung der Pfahlbaudörfer seit 1854. Hauterive,
Laténium / Zürich, Schw. Landesmuseum.
Kind, P., Jones, K., & Barmby, P. (2007). Developing attitudes towards science measures. International Journal
of Science Education, 29(7), 871–893.
Kokkotas, P., & Rizaki, A. (2011). Does history of science contribute to the construction of knowledge in the
constructivist environments of learning? In P. V. Kokkotas, K. S. Malamitsa, & A. A. Rizaki (Eds.),
Adapting historical knowledge production to the classroom (pp. 61–84). Boston: SensePublishers.
Kuhn, J. (2010). Authentische Aufgaben im theoretischen Rahmen von Instruktions- und Lehr-Lern-Forschung:
Effektivität und Optimierung von Ankermedien für eine neue Aufgabenkultur im Physikunterricht.
Wiesbaden: Vieweg + Teubner.
Kuhn, J., & Müller, A. (2014). Context-based science education by newspaper story problems: a study on
motivation and learning effects. Progress in Science Education, 1, 5–21.
Liu, X. (2012). Developing measurement instruments for science education research. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, &
C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Lucas, A. M. (1983). Scientific literacy and informal learning. Studies in Science Education, 10, 1–36.
Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: country comparisons. Canberra: Australian
Council of Learned Academies.
Marinval-Vigne, M.-C., & Vigne, J.-D. (1985). L’étude de la faune. In A. Pelletier (Ed.), L’archéologie et ses
méthodes (pp. 305–316). Roanne/Le Coteau: Editions Horvath.
Martins, R. d. A., & Silva, C. C. (2001). Newton and colour: the complex interplay of theory and experiment.
Science & Education, 10(3), 287–305.
Masciangioli, T. (2011). Chemistry in primetime and online: communicating chemistry in informal environments.
Washington: National Academies Press.
Matthews, M. R. (2014). Science, worldviews and education. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook
of research in history, philosophy and science teaching. Dordrecht: Springer.
McComas, W.F. (1998) (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Moser, S., & Gamble, C. (1997). Revolutionary images. The iconic vocabulary for representing human antiquity.
In B. L. Molyneaux (Ed.), The cultural life of images. London: Routledge.
Müller, A. (2017). Enjoyment and satisfaction in out-of-school learning offers. Unpublished survey.
Müller, A., Kuhn, J., Müller, W., & Vogt, P. (2009a). ‘Modified Anchored Instruction’ im
Naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht: Ein Interventions- und Forschungsprogramm Contribution cluster. In
D. Höttecke (Ed.), Entwicklung naturwissenschaftlichen Denkens zwischen Phänomen und Systematik. LIT:
Münster.
Müller, U., Carpendale, J. I. M., & Smith, L. (Eds.). (2009b). The Cambridge companion to Piaget. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Murmann, M., & Avraamidou, L. (2016). The use of fictional stories in science exhibits. Curator: The Museum
Journal, 59(3), 239–261.
National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: people, places, and pursuits.
Committee on learning science in informal environments. In P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A. W. Shouse, & M. A.
Feder (Eds.), Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences
and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy.
Science education, 87(2), 224-240.
OECD. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy. A framework for PISA 2006. Paris:
OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2009). PISA 2006: technical report. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: mathematics, reading, science, problem
solving and financial literacy. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Orion, N. (1993). A model for the development and implementation of field trips as an integral part of the science
curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 93(6), 325–331.
Orion, N., & Hofstein, A. (1994). Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural
environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 1097–1119.
Orion, N., Hofstein, A., Tamir, P., & Giddings, G. (1997). Development and validation of an instrument for
assessing the learning environment of outdoor science activities. Science Education, 81(2), 161–171.
Packer, J. (2015). Science tourism. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education. Dordrecht: Springer
Netherlands.
Painter, J., Jones, M. G., Tretter, T. R., & Kubasko, D. (2006). Pulling back the curtain: uncovering and changing
students’ perceptions of scientists. School Science and Mathematics, 106(4), 181–190.
Patou-Mathis, M. (2011). Le Sauvage et le Préhistorique, miroir de l’Homme occidental. De la malédiction de
Cham à l’identité nationale. Paris: Editions Odile Jacob.
Pawek, C. (2009), Schülerlabore als interessefördernde außerschulische Lernumgebungen für Schülerinnen und
Schüler aus der Mittel- und Oberstufe. PhD thesis. Kiel: Christian-Albrechts-Universität.
Pétrequin, P. & Pétrequin, A. M. (2000). Ecologie d’un outil: la hache de pierre en Irian Jaya (Indonésie).
Monographie du C.R.A. (12), Paris, Editions du CNRS, 2e édition, complétée.
Piaget, J. (1952). The child’s conception of number. New York: Humanities Press.
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.
Piaget, J. (1966). Need and significance of cross-cultural studies in genetic psychology. International Journal of
Psychology, 1, 3–13.
Piaget, J. (1967). Biologie et connaissance. Gallimard: Paris. English translation: Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and
knowledge. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Piaget, J. (1977). The role of action in the development of thinking. In W. F. Overton & J. M. Gallagher (Eds.),
Knowledge and development, Vol. 1 (pp. 319–327). New York: Plenum.
Pike, A. W. G., Hoffmann, D. L., Garcia-Diez, M., Pettitt, P. B., Alcolea, J., De Balbin, R., Gonzalez-Sainz, C., &
de las Heras, C., Lasheras, J.A., Montes, R., Zilhao, J. (2012). U-series dating of Paleolithic art in 11 caves in
Spain. Science, 336, 1409–1413.
Pine, K., Messer, D., & St. John, K. (2001). Children’s misconceptions in primary science: a survey of teachers’
views. Research in Science & Technological Education, 19(1), 79–96.
Rathje, W. L., & Murphy, C. (2001). Rubbish: the archaeology of garbage. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
M. Besse et al.
Rennie, L. J. (1994). Measuring affective outcomes from a visit to a science education centre. Research in
Science Education, 24(1), 261–269.
Rennie, L. J. (2007). Learning science outside of school. In S. K. Abell & N. H. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of
research on science education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rennie, L. J. (2015). Making science beyond the classroom accessible to students. In D. Corrigan, C. Buntting, J.
Dillon, A. Jones, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The future in learning science: what’s in it for the learner? (pp. 151–
173). Cham: Springer.
Rennie, L. J., & Howitt, C. (2009). Science has changed my life! In Evaluation of the scientists in schools project
2008–2009. Perth: Curtin University of Technology.
Rheinberg, F. (2004). Motivationsdiagnostik. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Rheinberg, F., & Wendland, M. (2003). Itemübersicht zum Fragebogen PMI-P [Physik] (DFGProjekt:
Veranderung der Lernmotivation in Mathematik und Physik: Eine Komponentenanalyse und der Einfuss
elterlicher und schulischer Kontextfaktoren). Potsdam: Universität Potsdam, Institut für Psychologie.
Rheinberg, F., Wollmeyer, R., & Rollett, W. (2000). Motivation and action in self-regulated learning. In M.
Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 503–529). San Diego:
Academic Press.
Robert, D. L., Leung, A. Y. L., & Fregni Lins, A. (2013). From the slate to the web: technology in the
mathematics curriculum. In M. A. Clements, A. J. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung
(Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education. New York: Springer-Verlag New York Inc..
Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. H. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of
research on science education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Roux, V. (2003). A dynamic systems framework for studying technological change: application to the emergence
of the Potter’s wheel in the Southern Levant. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 10(1), 1–30.
Ruby, A. (2001). Hands-on science and student achievement. Santa Monica: RAND.
Scantlebury, K., Tal, T., & Rahm, J. (2007). “That don’t look like me.” Stereotypic images of science: where do
they come from and what can we do with them? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(3), 545–558.
Schoon, K. J. (1993). The origin of earth and space science misconceptions: a survey of preservice elementary
teachers. In J. D. Novak (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Seminar on Misconceptions and
Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics. Ithaca: Cornell University Retrieved on 8/5/2017 from
http://www.mlrg.org/index.html.
Schreiner, C. (2006). Exploring a ROSE-garden: Norwegian youth’s orientations towards science—seen as signs
of late modern identities. Oslo: University of Oslo.
Schroeder, C. M., Scott, T. P., Tolson, H., Huang, T. Y., & Lee, Y. H. (2007). A meta-analysis of national
research: effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 44(10), 1436–1460.
Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. Abell &
N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 31–56). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Shanks, M., Platt, D., & Rathje, W. L. (2004). The perfume of garbage: modernity and the archaeological.
Modernism/Modernity, 11(1), 61–83.
Shtulman, A., & Valcarcel, J. (2012). Scientific knowledge suppresses but does not supplant earlier intuitions.
Cognition, 124(2), 209–215.
Simonyi, K. (2012). A cultural history of physics. Bota Raton: CRC Press.
Singer, D. G. (2008). Cognitive development: Piaget’s theory. In E. Anderman & L. H. Anderman (Eds.),
Psychology of classroom learning: an encyclopedia. Cengage Learning: Farmington Hills.
Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2015). Alternative conceptions and intuitive rules. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
science education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Stocklmayer, S. M., Rennie, L. J., & Gilbert, J. K. (2010). The roles of the formal and informal sectors in the
provision of effective science education. Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 1–44.
Stull, A. T., Hegarty, M., Dixon, B., & Stieff, M. (2012). Representational translation with concrete models in
organic chemistry. Cognition & Instruction, 30(4), 404–434.
Swarat, S., Ortony, A., & Revelle, W. (2012). Activity matters: understanding student interest in school science.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 515–537.
Tal, T. (2012). Out-of-school: learning experiences, teaching and students’ learning. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C.
J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1109–1122). Dordrecht: Springer.
Tytler, R., Symington, D., & Clark, J. C. (2017). Community-school collaborations in science: towards improved
outcomes through better understanding of boundary issues. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 15(4), 643–661.
UNESCO (2011). International Standard Classification of Education: ISCED. Retrieved on 8/5/2017 from
http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/isced-2011-en.pdf.
UNESCO (Edt.). (1983). Mobile science exhibitions. New Delhi: UNESCO.

van Riper, A. B. (2002). Science in popular culture. Westport: Greenwood Press.
Vogt, P. (2010). Werbeaufgaben im Physikunterricht: Motivations- und Lernwirksamkeit authentischer Texte.
Wiesbaden: Vieweg + Teubner Verlag.
Vosniadou, S., & Vamvakoussi, X. (2006). Examining mathematics learning from a conceptual change point of
view: implications for the design of learning environments. In L. Verschaffel, F. Dochy, & M. Boekaerts
(Eds.), Instructional psychology: past, present, and future trends: sixteen essays in honour of Erik de Corte.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Weiss, L., & Müller, A. (2015). The notion of authenticity in the PISA units in physical science: an empirical
analysis. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 21(1), 87–97.
Wentzel, K. R., & Wigfield, A. (2009). Handbook of motivation at school. New York: Routledge.
Wikimedia (2018). Retrieved on 8/5/2017 from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:009-AN_APE_MAN.
jpg.
Wilkinson, L. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: guidelines and explanations. American
Psychologist, 54(8), 594–604.
Wise, K. C., & Okey, J. R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the effects of various science teaching strategies on
achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 419–435.
Yore, L. D., Pimm, D., & Tuan, H. L. (2007). The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(4), 559–589.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Affiliations
M. Besse 1 & S. Fragnière 1,2 & A. Müller 2 & M. Piguet 1 & L. Dubois 3 & D. Miéville 4 & S.
Schoeb 4 & D. Schumacher 3
1
Section of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Department F.-A. Forel for environmental and aquatic
sciences, Laboratory of prehistoric archaeology and anthropology, University of Geneva, Geneva,
Switzerland
2
Faculty of Sciences, Section of Physics, and University Institute for Teacher Education (IUTE), University
of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
3
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Science, Laboratoire de Didactique des Sciences, and University
Institute for Teacher Education (IUTE), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
4
Department d’Instruction Publique, Direction de l’enseignement obligatoire-enseignement primaire, Gene-
va, Switzerland

Learning About Archaeology and Prehistoric Life TH

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Learning About Archaeology and Prehistoric Life TH

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Learning About Archaeology and Prehistoric Life TH

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Science & Education

Learning About Archaeology and Prehistoric Life

M. Besse 1 & S. Fragnière 1,2 & A. Müller 2 1 3 4

# The Author(s) 2019

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

timeline is a fundamental aspect of an archaeologist’s work. The V&L project aimed to

learning of some important steps and themes of prehistory, materialised as a particular

2.1 Manipulatives and Hands-on Activities

2.2 Out-of-School Learning Opportunities

2.3 Conceptual Difficulties and Conceptual Learning

2.4 Research Questions

– learning about prehistoric life

3 Educational Scenario of the Workshops

Workshop Key content Period

3.1 Workshop 1: Prehistoric Painting

3.2 Workshop 2: Manufacturing a Bone Awl

Fig. 5 a, b Pictures of students during the bone awl workshop

ornaments. The study of bone artefacts is related to archaeozoology, yielding information on

4.1 Sample and Data Collection

4.2 Framework of the Intervention

4.3 Instruments and Data Analysis

4.3.1 Methodological Choices

4.3.2 Student Questionnaires

Fig. 6 Workshop appreciation by students (in % of maximal value)

– learning about prehistoric life (common and specific to both workshops)

5.1 Affective Domain and Appreciation /Enjoyment

5.2 Cognitive Domain

5.2.1 Knowledge About Prehistoric Life

5.2.2 Conceptual Learning About Prehistory

(a) Kinds of animals represented, and their changes (PP workshop)

(c) Brute caveman stereotype

5.2.3 Learning About Archaeologists and Archaeology as a Scientific Discipline

% yes Mammoth Penguin Rhinoceros Steinbock (ibex) Dinosaur Owl

5.2.4 Learning About Interactions of Archaeology and Other Disciplines

6.1 Affective Domain and Appreciation

Students’ feedback regarding engagement, educational value and general appreciation/

Fig. 10 a Question on archaeology as work. b Results (% of answers; pre and post-test)

Fig. 11 a Question on climate. b Results (% of answers; pre- and post-tests)

6.2 Cognitive Domain

6.3 General Discussion: Project Objectives and Research Questions

7 Conclusions and Perspectives

Fig. 12 An item which was not well understood by many students

Compliance with Ethical Standards

UNESCO (Edt.). (1983). Mobile science exhibitions. New Delhi: UNESCO.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.