Development and implementation of innovative concepts for language-sensitive student laboratories

Abstract

In the past decades, society in general has become strongly diverse. This change also affects schools. As a result, learning groups cannot be seen as homogeneous and taught in this way. One of the challenges is students' linguistic skills. Dealing with different linguistic competencies should not only be a focus of formal education in schools but supported by non-formal education such as student laboratories. Thus, there is a need for practical examples that are effective for teaching and learning of diverse groups of students and enables them to be an active part of the learning process. At the Ludwigsburg University of Education, learning settings for student laboratories that enable active participation for all students irrespective of their linguistic competencies are developed and implemented following the model of Participatory Action Research in three cycles. In a cyclical approach, language-sensitive and language-supportive learning materials are developed, implemented, and evaluated focusing on different chemical contents. Qualitative data are collected during the experimentation phase using a semi-structured observation sheet. In three phases, we evaluated semi-structured observations of eight learning groups of different grade levels and school types with a total of 163 students. The observations are analyzed using inductive qualitative content analysis. The results show an optimal composition of approved methods, tools, and activities as succesful examples. Furthermore, interdependence between different factors could be identified that have positive relations with active participation of all students.

---

Introduction

With increasing immigration in the last decades, the diversity of society in general and the students in educational institutions, in particular, has increased. Learning groups are not to be seen as homogeneous. As well as society as a whole, science education has also changed. Science education tries to fit in with these changes and has moved from being an elitist and specialized subject to “Science for All” (European Commission. Directorate General for Research and Innovation, 2020). Science for all means that learners are perceived to be different. Their difference serves as a resource for individual and mutual learning and development. In the sense of inclusive science education, students' differences are seen as an asset and opportunity (Sliwka, 2010). Students in one learning group differ from each other in many dimensions of diversity. This is also true for chemistry. One of the dimensions where students show strong differences is their linguistic competencies (Lee, 2005).

Language is a tool that we all constantly use in our everyday life. We use it to communicate and express our thoughts, wishes, ideas, and feelings. We use language to capture and express any kind of information or thoughts. Furthermore, language is a central component of all teaching-learning processes in the context of school. Using language is central to every learning process since teaching takes place on a linguistic level most of the time (Postman and Weingartner, 1971). Especially a monolinguistic habitus in schools is a great barrier to participation in education for students with a migrant background (Gogolin, 2008). Practically, all teaching and learning activities are taught through language, either in oral or written form (Markic et al., 2013).

Differences in students' linguistic competencies are a part of a political educational discussion for already more than 20 years. Already TIMSS- and PISA-studies show the relevance of language in science education (Lynch, 2001). Empirical studies like PISA 2018 show that still 20% of the students in Germany do not achieve stage 2 in science. This result is closely related to students' socio-economic status and migration background (OECD, 2019). These students often are hindered in showing performance in the learning of scientific knowledge. The lower performance is often a result of both the simultaneous learning of science content and the linguistic structures of the language of instruction. In addition, problems arise because the scientific language varies from the language of instruction in schools as well as everyday language of students (Markic and Childs, 2016).

Thus, language is a key factor for understanding various scientific learning contents. Language, therefore, needs to take an important part in teaching and learning chemical content. From this point of view, the fact is that every teacher is a language teacher as well (Childs et al., 2015). For chemistry education, this means in concrete terms that subject skills are always taught in a context of very different and mixed abilities and high heterogeneity of language (Childs et al., 2015). Following the statement of Postman and Weingartner (1971), knowledge is defined through language. That shows very clearly that language competencies and learning chemistry do interact.

Learning is an active process (Wavering, 2011). Knowledge generated through active learning is better integrated into pre-knowledge, easier to recognize, and more flexible to use than the knowledge that has been generated passively (Taber, 2014). Thus, learning chemical content means the active participation of students during the learning process. In this context, active participation means that each student becomes involved cognitively and actively in experimentation.

However, schools are not alone in the challenge of enabling students' active learning chemistry in language heterogeneous groups. Non-formal education offers can be a good addition for supporting students in their learning of chemistry and developing linguistic competencies. Thus, the consideration of language in science education does not only concern formal teaching in schools. All educational institutions whose target group is students and whose aims are to teach science content and skills are affected. The role of non-formal education is already being discussed intensively in the international education community (e.g.Brandt, 2005; Guderian and Priemer, 2008; Rennie, 2014; Affeldt et al., 2017; Raviv et al., 2019). Following UNESCO 2010 requirement for education for all (Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission e.V., 2011), new challenges also arise for non-formal education.

In the following, we will take a closer look into the possibilities of non-formal education for supporting students' active participation during experimentation in non-formal education. The development and implementation of language-sensitive learning settings for non-formal education will be presented and discussed based on the example of a student laboratory.

Theoretical framework

Language(s) in chemistry education

Research shows clearly that learning in general is particularly difficult for students when their first language is not the language of instruction (Lee, 2001). Thus, there is a close connection between language and content learning (OECD, 2009). Consequently, any teaching that aims to communicate content must also teach language (Childs et al., 2015). Teachers imply a basic understanding of spoken language in the classroom (Markic et al., 2013). According to Osborne (2002), only a few science teachers are aware of the role of language in science teaching. Unfortunately, after some development, the situation did not change much (Markic, 2017). This is not surprising, as most science teachers have the impression that the discourse in science is transparent and the scientific language is clear (Childs et al., 2015). But it is the case that every subject has a specific language with its terms and grammar features (Buhlmann and Fearns, 2000). Therefore, learning the scientific language is about learning a more or less unknown language, where there is a need for support and supervision.

The language used in learning and teaching chemistry is very different from the everyday language that students are familiar with. The language used in chemistry classes will be referred to below as “Chemish” as defined by Markic and Childs (2016). Chemish is multifaceted in itself and has like every other language its own rules and special features, which poses special challenges for learners. Chemish is multi-layered and complex compared to everyday language, with many technical and foreign terms, complex sentences, logical connectives, and multisyllabic words (Markic and Childs, 2016). As in other sciences, the scientific language of Chemish includes more than just terms. Diagrams, symbols, equations, pictures, tables, and more subject-relevant content (Lemke, 1998). The use of symbolic and mathematical language in formulae and diagrams and the representation of structures often leads to understanding problems. Depending on the context, Chemish also often hides complex concepts or different meanings that are essential for understanding. The main difficulty is that terms have different meanings depending on the context. For example, the meaning of the terms: solution, force, or current are different in chemical context than in everyday life context (Childs et al., 2015). That makes learning Chemish different from learning the first language but also different from learning a second language as well (Markic and Childs, 2016).

It is to consider as well, in the way of using and learning Chemish, that students are not in the same role as their teacher. The teachers already have specific knowledge about the topics, which are discussed. Students do not have that yet. Therefore, it is necessary, that students not only learn the vocabulary and their semantics. They also need to learn details about the phenomena and the theoretical concept behind them; the understanding of the phenomena (KMK, 2005). In many cases, students are overwhelmed by many new terms. They are busy copying the terms correctly so they don’t have time to understand their meaning. They only memorize the terms (Markic et al., 2013).

Linguistic competence is only one of the aspects in which students differ, but it has a great impact on the learning of chemical content. The increase in the number of students with different abilities, second and foreign language learners, and students with special needs as well as socio-economic status also affects the use of language in the classroom (Childs et al., 2015). Therefore, language receives special attention (Childs et al., 2015). Thus, the focus on language teaching and learning in chemistry classes should be seen in the meaning of language-sensitive teaching and learning of chemistry.

In language-sensitive teaching, the main tasks are therefore divided into two parts. On the one hand, scientific content is to be made understandable for all students, while on the other hand, an improvement in general and scientific communication is promoted (Leisen, 2010; Lee et al., 2019). For teaching and learning which matches these two goals, there are several methods and tools that can be used for this purpose. These tools and methods, challenge and foster the use of scientific language in different standard linguistic situations in class. The fostering refers to the word, sentence, and text levels (Leisen, 2010; Markic et al., 2013). Using different channels through which communication can be helpful as well, the use of both non-linguistic modalities (symbols, pictures, graphs) and linguistic modalities (text and (non-)verbal communication) supports students to speak about science topics (Lee et al., 2019).

Additional to this, language-supportive approaches are known. One approach that has shown to be particularly profitable in science education is Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). This involves teaching science content and language structures in an integrated approach (Dalton-Puffer, 2011; Leisen, 2015; Lee et al., 2019). Lee et al. (2022) suggests design principles for a science education that integrates language learning that has positive effects on multilingual learners in terms of learning science. These include, for example, choosing science phenomena and problems that involve all learners and are relevant to their everyday lives. Furthermore, multilingual learners should be integrated into science by solving science issues in the same way that scientists do. In this way, they use language to do chemistry.

Active participation in chemistry education

According to the World Conference of Ministers of Education, same opportunities to participate in education needs to be offered to all students and the development of their potential is one aim of education (Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission e.V., 2011). In this context, participation means learning together with others and being actively involved in the learning process (Stinken-Rösner et al., 2020). Furthermore, participation implies recognition and acceptance of each other (Booth, 2003). Booth defines participation in education as follows: “Participation in education involves going beyond access. It implies learning alongside others and collaborating with them in shared lessons. It involves active engagement with what is learnt and taught, and having a say in how education is experienced. But participation also involves being recognised for oneself and being accepted for oneself. I participate with you, when you recognise me as a person like yourself, and accept me for who I am.” (Booth, 2003, p. 2). Professional practice in the educational context implies reflecting on and responding to the diversity of students in such a way that all students are provided with learning opportunities that give them equal educational opportunities (Sliwka, 2010). In this context, identifying and minimising different barriers to learning (Stinken-Rösner et al., 2020) and using approaches that promote active participation for all are preconditions for participation.

There are already some approaches that have shown positive influences on the learning of sciences, in general, and the learning of chemistry, in particular. The approaches: context-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and cooperative learning have been shown in several studies to have a positive impact on the application of knowledge and skills to authentic problems (Chiu et al., 2019), the promotion of communication (Bowen, 2000; Eilks, 2005), and the use of scientific working methods, e.g. experiments to generate knowledge (Eilks, 2003; Gilbert, 2007).

Relevant contexts help students to see the relevance of chemical content to their lives (Chiu et al., 2019) and to integrate and understand complex chemical content (Eilks et al., 2013). Inquiry-based learning has a positive impact on science achievement (e.g.Hofstein et al., 2005; Geier et al., 2008; Palmer, 2009; Hofer et al., 2018; Sadeh and Zion, 2009) and support the development of student's critical thinking and conceptual understanding (Minner et al., 2010) as well as in the development of their scientific inquiry and hypothesis generation competencies (Kipnis and Hofstein, 2008). Inquiry-based learning has positive effects on students’ motivation (Hofstein and Kempa, 1985) and engagement in science education (Sadeh and Zion, 2009). Cooperative learning promotes the development and advancement of communication competencies, problem-solving competencies, and critical thinking forced by the active participation of the students in the learning process through working in cooperative groups (Bowen, 2000; Prince, 2004; Eilks, 2005; Gillies, 2006; Lin, 2006; Prichard et al., 2006).

Non-formal education and student laboratories

The promotion of interest in science and open-mindedness towards it, but also the learning of scientific content and working methods, are the aims of science education in general and chemistry education in particular (Euler, 2005). In addition to formal education in schools, chemistry content and skills are also required and fostered in informal education. The OECD defined informal learning as out-of-school learning without structure or curriculum (OECD, 2012). Informal science learning can be classified as out-of-school settings which are not part of a formally assessable educational curriculum. For example, a voluntary visit to a museum, playing a computer game with science content, or watching a science program on television are all part of informal learning. Just between voluntary informal learning and involuntary highly structured and organized formal learning is non-formal learning. Non-formal learning makes use of characteristics from both extremes. As a rule, non-formal learning takes place outside of school in an open and unrestricted setting but is structured and organized as well as oriented towards the educational curriculum (Coll et al., 2013). Non-formal settings in which students experimentally investigate scientific issues in project-based teaching settings are known as student laboratories (Guderian and Priemer, 2008). Student laboratories enable students to deal with scientific topics independently within the framework of active forms of learning. Student laboratories aim to work in authentic research contexts and to support the importance and dissemination of science for our society. A further aim of student laboratories is to foster the future of scientific professions by offering students an insight into working in a laboratory (Euler, 2005). Studies investigating the effectiveness of different student laboratories on scientific topics have shown that a visit to a student laboratory has positive effects on students (Engeln, 2004; Brandt, 2005; Guderian, 2007; Guderian and Priemer, 2008). Even a single visit has a short-term significant positive impact on self-concept, intrinsic motivation for chemistry, and interest in the subject (Brandt, 2005). Student laboratories must also be adapted to the diverse needs of students so that they can reach as many students as possible. Various projects and studies in Germany (Stäudel et al., 2007; Groß and Reiners, 2012; Raguse et al., 2013; Scholz et al., 2016) have shown positive effects of various differentiation opportunities in the students' laboratory. Particularly successful in dealing with linguistic diversity have been the design of the material offered with the inclusion of linguistic supports, contexts related to everyday life, and the provision of graded tip cards for better scientific understanding and experimentation. These opportunities for differentiation have a particularly positive effect on student motivation, independent experimentation, and inquiry-based learning (Stäudel et al., 2007; Affeldt et al., 2019).

Research question

Studies have shown the positive effects of individual methods, tools, and activities in dealing with linguistic diversity in formal and non-formal education (see chapter before).

The present study connects the positive findings of non-formal education and language-sensitive science teaching to develop innovative examples for student laboratories enabling active participation for all students in linguistically heterogeneous groups.

To reach this aim learning settings are developed based on different methods, tools, and activities for language-sensitive and language-supportive learning for student laboratories. Learning setting means the organisation and design of the laboratory (e.g., illustration of the workplaces), all learning material (digital and experimental), and all support offers for a defined chemical content and context. For this purpose, five approaches were chosen which appear suitable to support students in dealing with language during experimentation. Thus, the present study is guided by the research question:

“Which approaches of language-sensitive and language-supportive learning enable active participation during experimentation for all students in a students’ laboratory?”

Because the study aims to show practical examples, it is necessary to find concrete methods, tools and activities that are appropriate for a language-sensitive and language-supportive students’ laboratory. Thus, our study is guided by the following sub-questions:

1. Which language-sensitive and language-supportive methods, tools and activities are appropriate for student laboratories?

2. Which is the optimal composition of language-sensitive and language-supportive methods, tools and activities for the students during the active participation in non-formal education?

Context of the study

As part of the ERASMUS Plus project “Diversity in Science towards Social Inclusion – non-formal education in science for students' diversity – DiSSI” partners from Germany, Slovenia, the UK, Ireland, and North Macedonia are involved in the development and implementation of innovative concepts to foster inclusive science education in non-formal learning offers. The project follows the idea of establishing non-formal education offers that promote interest in science through relevance to everyday life issues and target group-oriented contexts. To achieve this idea, learning settings are needed that enable the active participation of all students. In developing non-formal learning settings for inclusive science education, the project focuses on four dimensions of diversity: (I) linguistic competencies, (II) cultural and ethnic background, (III) socio-economic status, and (IV) students' giftedness.

The development of inclusive learning settings occurs in two phases: (i) each partner is focusing on one dimension of diversity, and (ii) expanding the offerings for all four dimensions of diversity. The combination of evaluated approaches from each dimension of diversity should result in innovative examples for dealing with students' diversity in non-formal science education.

The German partner, the University of Education in Ludwigsburg, works on learning settings for student laboratory in chemistry for secondary school students. In the student laboratory, students should investigate different chemical contents based on practical work. In the first phase, Ludwigsburg University of Education focuses on the dimension of students' linguistic competencies. In concrete terms, learning settings for the students’ laboratory are developed, implemented, and evaluated to identify language-sensitive and language-supportive approaches that enable active participation of all students irrespective of their linguistic competencies.

Learning settings for a language-sensitive and language-supportive student laboratory

As part of the DiSSI project, the student laboratory focuses on students' linguistic competencies. Learning settings are developed, implemented, and evaluated based on methods, tools, and activities of language-sensitive and language-supportive learning to enable active participation for all students. For this purpose, language-sensitive methods, tools, and activities are chosen that support students in dealing with the language of instruction (German), and language-supportive methods, tools, and activities are used to support students in developing linguistic competencies in Chemish. To generate language-sensitive and language-supportive concepts for student laboratories learning settings are developed based on five approaches (Fig. 1). The combination of those should lead to active participation of all students during experimentation. In the following the approaches mentioned in Fig. 1 are described.

Fig. 1 Approaches of development of language-sensitive and language-supportive DiSSI – learning settings.

In general, the learning materials and the laboratory have been developed in a language-sensitive and language-supportive approach using well-chosen methods, tools, and activities. In concrete terms: all types of equipment in the workplaces are illustrated and labelled in such a way that each workplace is equipped with a poster with pictures and the names of all equipment that are included. In this way, students learn the technical terms for the laboratory equipment used for their experiments. Learning materials and aids that could be connected are marked with the same symbols. The introduction to the contexts takes place via video and audio sequences instead of longer text sequences. The combination of the approaches allow differentiation in the demand of the content and the linguistic support of the students during experimentation using:

(i) Cooperative learning forms: the students work in cooperative teams or groups (maximum three students per group). To foster using language, in general, and Chemish, in particular, methods of cooperative learning are used. In concrete terms, the students are requested to experiment cooperatively by organising their group work by group tasks for each team member or based on cooperative methods such as “Think/Pair/Share.” The focus in the development of the learning setting is on the promotion of communication within the teams and groups and interdependent support. To create as many opportunities for discussion and sharing ideas as possible, students are repeatedly confronted with problems and thinking tasks that they have to deal with and discuss together (Witteck et al., 2007).

(ii) Tablets: the teams and groups use a tablet for experimentation. The handy size, the interactive touch interface and the wireless use of tablets make their use easy and flexible for experimentation (Krause and Eilks, 2014). Several sense channels can be addressed at the same time and as needed (Huwer and Seibert, 2018). So, the learning material is more interactive and multimedia-based than text-based. The tablet includes information about the learning setting, experiment descriptions, and work instructions and it functions as a laboratory journal and as an aid medium as well. The use of digital media makes it possible to record voice memos, videos, and photos and thus extends the documentation options for observations and findings without written correspondence.

(iii) Context: each learning setting deals with chemical content in a context. The contexts provide a useful framework around the learning setting and describe the task for the students. The context presents a problem that the students have to solve. The chosen contexts deal with topics from the students' everyday life (e.g. care products). Familiar contexts make learning chemical content less complex and show the everyday relevance of chemistry for students (Eilks et al., 2013). Dealing with relevant context for students can foster their interest in science and motivation to do the experiments.

(iv) Graded tip cards: all experiments are provided with graded tip cards. They can be used individually by the students. The learning aids support the students with small hints or even structured experiment instructions during the performance, observation, and findings of the experiments. Complex scientific issues can be answered step by step with the help of graded tip cards. Differentiation within a learning group is possible through individual support (Markic et al., 2013). Students can work at different learning and working tempi (Stäudel et al., 2007). The extent and type of help can be organized by themselves without reducing the complexity of the task as such or generally lowering the requirements (Affeldt et al., 2019). The graded tip cards are designed language-sensitive using tools of language-sensitive science teaching (Leisen, 2010; Markic et al., 2013). Illustrated experiment steps, for example, help students to perform the experiments. Sentence patterns, block diagrams, and sentence starters help to formulate observations and findings. The graded tip cards support students in dealing with Chemish (Markic et al., 2013) and help students to experiment in an inquiry way (Stäudel et al., 2007; Affeldt et al., 2019).

(v) Tutors: pre-service chemistry teachers tutor students during experimentation in the students' laboratory. The pre-service chemistry teachers act as a coach when students are involved in project work or self-study. The teacher provides advice and guidance and helps students clarify ideas and limit tasks.

Three learning settings are developed, implemented, and evaluated based on the three language-sensitive and language-supportive approaches (Fig. 1). All learning settings using the same method of cooperative learning to organise the work in teams, a tablet as a protocol and to inform the students about the task and context, and language-sensitive designed graded tip cards to support students during experimentation in an independent way. The learning settings deal with different chemical learning contents (substances and separation methods, acids and alkaline solutions, alcohols) in different contexts.

Nevertheless, all learning settings are structured in the same way. In each scenario, students have to solve a problem by experimentation. In each experiment, the students are confronted with a research question. They have to formulate hypotheses, plan an experiment, perform the experiment, make observations, find explanations and make conclusions. The experiments are designed base on the levels of inquiry described by Blanchard et al. (2010). Accordingly, each learning setting includes experiments that are more or less structured inquiry or open inquiry.

Methods

Participatory action research

One of the aims chemistry education research, is to transfer its results into practice. New models, concepts, and methods are implemented in different educational institutions and result in curriculum development (Eilks and Ralle, 2002). A successful approach to developing concrete teaching practice by research process is Participatory Action Research (Eilks and Ralle, 2002; Burmeister et al., 2012; Eilks and Markic, 2015; Laudonia et al., 2018). To develop language-sensitive and language-supportive learning settings for our student laboratory, we follow the cyclical process typically for Action Research.

The cyclical development process by Eilks and Ralle (2002) is characterized by four steps: (i) development of learning setting and materials, (ii) implementation, (iii) evaluation, and (iv) reflection and revision. The addition of the steps (a) identification of a deficit and (b) development team building before the start of the named cyclical process according to Eilks and Ralle (2002), to the model has already shown useful for the further development of university teaching (Tolsdorf and Markic, 2018). The advantage of this addition is the involvement of more people with different experiences and different perspectives within the development process. Another aspect is the subsequent evaluation of the own event and a progressive development through repeated evaluation and adaptation phases (Tolsdorf and Markic, 2018).

With each cycle, the evaluation and development become more grounded. During the process, different foci for adaptation can be made and evaluated. Furthermore, it is possible to react more quickly to difficulties in the developed learning setting and materials by making appropriate adaptations and evaluating them. Eilks and Ralle (2002) propose a division of these development cycles into three phases.

(1) In the first phase, the first concepts are developed and the first implementation is made. Here, the aim is to establish the development in terms of subject didactics and to customize it for the target group. In most cases, one cycle with one learning group is enough.

(2) In the second phase, the material is systematically enhanced, improved, and extended. At the same time, if necessary, the development team is expanded to include additional members.

(3) In the third phase of the development process, the developed material is disseminated to many learning groups and implemented. The offer is disseminated and adapted from others.

In this project, first, a development team was established. The development team consists of chemistry teachers, chemistry educators, and experts for language-sensitive chemistry teaching during the whole process. Second, three language-sensitive and language-supportive learning settings dealing with different chemical content and contexts are developed. With the development of this first learning settings a cyclical development process started. Fig. 2 shows one cycle, which consists of four steps: (i) developing language-sensitive learning settings (ii), implementing them in language heterogeneous groups, (iii) evaluating them (iv), and discussing the evaluation results and improving learning settings. With the improved learning settings, a new cycle begins. This cycle was repeated several times until the evaluation showed data saturation. These repetitions are structured based on the three phases of Participatory Action Research (Eilks and Ralle, 2002). During the development process, pre-service chemistry teachers and in-service chemistry teachers were added to the development team. The added team members are involved in the implementation and evaluation of the learning settings. Therefore, they offered a comprehensive view of students dealing with the learning material.

Fig. 2 The development process in DiSSI – project.

Starting point for the cyclical development process

The initial learning settings are context-oriented and tablet-based. Students work in teams of two or three members, depending on the size of the class. Every student team is assigned to a workplace, which contains laboratory equipment and a tablet. The laboratory equipment is illustrated and labelled. The students are introduced to the context via short videos and are informed about their tasks. There are up to five different experiments for each learning setting. Student teams work on as many experiments as they can in the offered time. At the beginning of each experiment, students discuss within their groups the procedure and divide a group task (planning, implementation and documentation) among each team member. The group tasks change for each experiment. Experiment boxes are prepared for the different experiments, which are labeled with various symbols. The student teams choose an experiment they would like to start with. Graded tip cards support the students in doing the experiments and writing observations and explanations. These graded tip cards are located in the experiment boxes. In addition, a glossary is available that defines some of the technical terms and technical contents are explained by short videos.

Sample

The results include collected data from eight chemistry classes of different grade levels and school types with a total of 163 students. In the following, a description in detail of the sample divided into the development phases (Eilks and Ralle, 2002) is shown.

Phase 1. In the first phase data was collected from one learning group from a comprehensive school (grade 5–13; age 11–18) with a total of 18 students. The students attend 6th grade and are between 11 and 14 years old. 9 students are male, and 9 are female. 33.3% of students speak the language of instruction (German) as their native language; 66.7% of students speak the language of instruction as a second or foreign language. 83.3% of students stated that they speak German most often in their everyday lives, and 16.7% speak another language more often than German.

Phase 2. The second phase encompasses data from seven learning groups from different secondary modern schools (grade 5–10; age 11–16) with a total of 145 students. The students attend grades 6, 8, and 10 and are aged between 11 and 17. 79 students are male, 62 female, 2 diverse, and 2 without indication. 48.3% of students speak the language of instruction (German) as their native language; 51.7% of students speak the language of instruction as a second or foreign language. 92.4% of students said they speak German most often in their everyday lives, and 7.6% speak another language more often than German. In order to be able to make detailed improvements, the second phase was split into two cycles according to Fig. 2. The first cycle includes qualitative data of four learning groups (students: n = 79). The second cycle includes further qualitative data of three learning groups (students: n = 66).

The Declaration of Helsinki was followed. Since the study is done with students under the age of 18, permission from the parents was collected beforehand. All participants were informed about their assured anonymity, why the research was being conducted, and how their data were going to be used. According to legislation of the state Baden-Württemberg (Germany) and the Ludwigsburg University of Education no further ethical approval is required.

Instruments

In terms of Participatory Action Research, data is continuously gathered and evaluated during the development process. It will allow a faster and more detailed adaptation of new material develop approaches in practice. In the student laboratory, qualitative data is generated in each cycle of the development process. Within the framework of a seminar at the university, pre-service chemistry teachers supervise students during experimentation in the students' laboratory. To generate qualitative data, they tutor the students and observe them simultaneously, doing active observation and thus, talking to the students as well. The observations aim to show if the learning settings enable students to participate in the experimentation actively. A semi-structured observation sheet is used, to generate targeted observations. This observation sheet should give ideas for pre-service chemistry teachers on what they can observe. To get an overview of students dealing with the learning material and to show which of the language-sensitive and language-supportive approaches enable active participation during experimentation the semi-structured observation sheet is focused on the language-sensitive and language-supportive methods, tools, and activities. In particular, for each tool (glossary, graded tip cards, explanatory videos), there is observed and asked:

– How do students try to solve their difficulties?

– Is there a support offer for this problem? Is it being used?

– Are students aware of support offers? If so, why don't they use them?

– What causes problems during work in groups?

Furthermore, dealing with learning material is a focus. In particular, there is observed and asked:

– If support used, how was the process of decision within the group?

– How is the support used in the group? e.g., is the support offer discussed together?

– Do all students actively participate in experimentation?

Do they have a task within the team?

Take everybody parts in discussions?

However, pre-service teachers are invited to make observation on different elements which they notice but are not mentioned in the sheet.

Data analysis

As a basis for the improvement of learning settings in each cycle of the development process, the observations and statements were categorized to identify positive and negative working aspects. The data analysis is based on qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz (2018). The development of the evaluation pattern, and thus categories, is done inductively in three phases, starting from the data material of the first phase based on the most frequent observations regarding the same focus. The development of the categories is done during the whole development process based on the data material of each cycle. During the cyclical development process, categories are described in more detailed by subcategories and categories representing a new focus are added.

The generation of qualitative data was stopped when the data material showed no further aspects that needed to be improved and there was data saturation. The individual steps are validated communicatively within a group of chemistry teacher educators and chemistry teachers (Swanborn, 1996).

Results

The adaption and improvement of the language-sensitive and language-supportive learning settings are done continuously during the development process, aiming to show practical examples for student laboratories that enable students to participate actively during experimentation. The results and the successive development of categories are structured through the three phases according to Eilks and Ralle (2002). For each phase of development, results will be presented. On the one side, the development of the evaluation pattern will be presented; on the other side, the improvements of the learning environment will be shown.

The pre-service chemistry teacher observations and student answers were translated from German to English by the authors. The translations were validated by two independent chemistry educators. The first translated the observations from German into English, and the second translated English back into German. The observations were used if the translations matched.

Phase 1

The first phase shows the observations considering the understanding of the learning material and work with the support offers.

The Table 1 shows examples of the most frequent pre-service-chemistry teacher observations and student answers (in italic). They are coded in main categories (in bold) and their subcategories.

Table 1 Example for coding qualitative data of the first phase

(1) Understanding the learning material

(1.1) Application of the learning material

“Students put everything out of the box. All grades of the graded tip cards are now on the table in a mess.” (pscs 1, 20.10.2021)

(1.2) Content of the learning material

“The students scroll through the tablet completely without reading, so they have no idea what they have to do. After I tell them, they start from the beginning and read the tasks and information. Now it is clear what they have to do.” (pscs 1, 20.10.2021)

(2) Work with the support offers

(2.1) Use of the individual support offers

“Students use the graded tip cards in a confusing way. They do not notice the numbering.” (pscs 1, 20.10.2021)

(2.2) Presentation of the individual support offers

“Students do not know how to perform the experiment but they do not use the tip cards” (pscs 2, 20.10.2021)

The Pre-service chemistry teacher asked why:

Students: “Oh, we can use these?” (pscs 2, 20.10.2021)

---

The qualitative data collected during the first phase show that the most frequent observations are made in category understanding the learning material (category 1). The observations indicate a general unclearness related to the learning material. On the one hand, students had problems to find the right materials they could use and they struggle with how they could start the experimentation process. On the other hand, the connection between learning material and support offers was often unclear. Observations show that many students had problems with using the support offers (category 2). Either the students did not understand, how to use (category 2.1) the support offers or they did not know, that there was any support (category 2.2). Only a few of the existing learning materials and support offers are actively used by the students. Particularly frequent observations were made on the graded tip cards. In most cases, the design and structure of the graded tip cards were confusing.

In conclusion, many students have problems finding orientation in learning material. Therefore, they cannot use it for experimentation. Based on these evaluation results, the learning settings were improved. Following changes are made for the start of phase 2:

– As a result of the findings, the availability, and presentation of support offers, as well as the structure of the learning material, were adapted. In concrete terms, the single grades of the graded tip cards were grouped and labelled with symbols. Parts of the learning material where support offers are available are marked with the same symbols. The graded tip cards have been placed highly visible.

– Pre-structured workplaces were introduced. Each group is given a prepared workplace with the materials for the first activity. In concrete terms, every workplace is equipped with an experiment box for the first experiment. The tablet-based learning material is pre-structured in such a way that the learning material and the experiment box are connected. Students decide after the first experiment, which is next.

– The learning settings were enhanced by a consistent and shared introduction to the learning setting. A concrete introduction to the learning material, hints and explanations about the support offers, and a shared start into the learning setting by introducing the context and giving work instruction are given.

Phase 2

Cycle 1. The first cycle of the second phase show the observations considering the interaction within the teams.

There are no more observations referring to understanding the learning material (category 1) in the second phase. The observations show a positive change referring to the working with the support offers (category 2). Students use the support offers more often compared with the first phase. A particularly positive change can be seen in using graded tip cards. In general, it seems to be that the application of graded tip cards was more understandable, e.g. students used them in the correct order. So, students experimented independently (e.g. for observation: “We couldn't get any further at first. Through the tip cards, the performance was clear.” (pscs 1, 02.12.2021)). Furthermore, observations show that various groups of students used different grads of tip cards and worked more semi-structured or open inquiry.

New observations were made, which lead to a new category and sub-categories in addition to those in Table 1.

Table 2 shows the observations considering the interaction within the teams.

Table 2 Example for coding qualitative data of the second phase/cycle 1

(3) Interaction within the teams

(3.1) Cooperative group work

“Help is not discussed together. The student who read the tip card leads. The other team members perform the experiment.” (pscs 3, 25.11.2021)

“students don’t give team tasks to each member” (pscs 2, 08.12.2021)

(3.2) Students’ motivation

“One student wants to motivate the other and say: come on, let's solve the Mystery, I want to know what's happened!” (pscs 2, 25.11.2021)

(3.3) Inquiry-based learning

“Students look for devices from the cupboards in their workplaces. They use the labelling to name devices and to choose the right ones.” (pscs 2, 02.12.2021)

“Students discuss how they can perform the experiment” (pscs 1, 02.12.2021)

---

The observations show that students often decide to use one of the support offers but they do not discuss them. Observations shows that students become inquiry-based by planning their experiments and discussing their observations. Furthermore, they work together more often, e.g. they share their ideas with the team members. Even though the students work together, it is often not cooperative. In most cases, one student leads the team. Other students work on tasks that are given by one student. Students mainly do share tasks within their teams. In many cases, they ignore the request to give each team member a group task or they assign them but don’t work on it.

In conclusion, the main findings are focused on students' participation in the learning process and their cooperation within their team.

To reach this, the learning material is improved as follows:

– During the introduction to the learning setting, the focus was placed more on working together as a team. Therefore, group tasks for each team member are replaced by work instructions based on the cooperative method “Think–Pair–Share”. In this way, the focus is more on discussing opinions and sharing ideas. Students have to define and negotiate work areas assigned to their group.

– In general, the focus was placed more on communication. For example, support offers were presented more like a talk and discussion starter.

Cycle 2. The first cycle of the second phase show the observations considering the working with the support offers and the interaction within the teams.

The observations show that teams of two students work often cooperatively and better than teams of three students. There is more often a discussion about the experiments, and the support offers, and students are more often looking for solutions in an inquiry way when they work with only one partner.

In this cycle, there were no other categories developed since no new information were shown in the data. However, observations show that there is some confusion about the support offers (Table 3).

Table 3 Example for coding qualitative data of the second phase/cycle 2

(2) Working with the support offers

(2.2) Presentation of the individual support offers

“The glossary is only used, when recommended by the pre-service-teacher” (pscs 2, 17.02.2022)

(3) Interaction within the teams

(3.3) Inquiry-based learning

“students ask teachers for help instead using support offers” (pscs 2, 18.02.2022)

---

On the one hand, often there is unawareness about the availability of support offers. This concerns especially the glossary. On the other hand, students often ask pre-service chemistry teachers for help instead of using the support offers.

Based on these evaluation results, the learning settings were improved. The focus was on visualizing the support offers in the laboratory and the supporting pre-service chemistry teachers. In concrete terms:

– Posters with possible support offers were placed in the laboratory.

– Pre-service chemistry teachers were instructed to act more as a coach rather than as additional support offer.

Phase 3

In the third phase, we implemented the learning settings eleven more times with different chemistry classes from various secondary schools without making further adaptions. There are no further aspects that need to be improved observed. The observations referring the interaction within the teams could be established and reliably observed. Furthermore, the observations show that all the students visiting the student laboratory actively participated in team work. In the third cycle, the focus is also on dissemination. We are currently in contact with other student laboratories that want to adopt our language-sensitive and language-supportive concept and offer it as well.

Finally, we could identify three relevant main categories which are described in more detail by seven subcategories presented in Fig. 3. This category system will be used for the development of further learning settings in this direction.

Fig. 3 Presentation of the evaluation pattern.

During the development process, we could observe that the way pre-service chemistry teachers tutored the students during experimentation influenced the way students dealt with the learning material. When pre-service chemistry teachers act as a coach, students are more involved with the learning material, more often use the support offers when needed, and work more independently and cooperatively. Students are then less often asking pre-service chemistry teachers for solutions or assistance when they have difficulties for which there are support offers.

In conclusion, as the learning settings are continuously improved, the focus and frequency of observations differ during the cyclical development process. Different foci on data material results in categories that appear and categories that disappear during the development process.

This results in three aspects that are important for the development of language-sensitive and language-supportive learning settings for the student laboratories so that all students can actively participate during experimentation: (1) a structured learning setting with intuitive learning material, (2) simple and direct support through different support offers, and (3) cooperative group work.

Discussion

In this study, we developed in a cyclical process following Participatory Action Research approach learning materials in form of language-sensitive and language-supportive learning setting for the student laboratory to give innovative practical examples that enable active participation for all students during experimentation of all with a special focus on students’ linguistic competencies. For this purpose, we continuously observed heterogeneous student groups of different grades, skill levels, and school types while experimenting with offered learning materials in a cyclical development process using a semi-structured observation sheet. In analysing data, a particular focus was on students' use of language-sensitive support offers and the interaction between the students within the teams.

The study summarizes approaches that foster the active participation of all students in linguistically heterogeneous groups and what to be aware of in general while organizing and developing language-sensitive and language-supportive learning settings for non-formal education. In concrete terms, in this development process, we connected the approaches: context-based learning, cooperative learning, and inquiry-based learning to foster active participation. In addition, possible barriers were identified and minimized with the support of various support offers (explanatory videos, glossary, graded tip cards, linguistic support).

The results of our study show that the approaches mentioned above are appropriate for non-formal learning offers, such as the student laboratories to promote the active participation of all, with a special focus on linguistic heterogeneity. Especially the everyday contexts not only showed the relevance of the chemical content for the students (cf.Chiu et al., 2019), but also motivated the students to experiment. In the process of development, categories were identified that are crucial for the success of language-sensitive and language-supportive learning settings. The categories we have defined affect each other. This affectation can be seen in a hierarchical way and also one step as a pre-condition for the next. Fig. 4 shows this hierarchy and interdependence. The organization, structure, and application of the learning materials and the support offers must be clear and as intuitive as possible to enable all students to experiment in an increasingly active, independent, and cooperative manner.

Fig. 4 Hierarchy and interdependence of the categories.

This finding is based on the type and frequency of observations noted in the development process. In the first phase of the cyclical development process, observations were made frequently about the general organization, structure, and application of the learning materials, and availability of support offers. In the second phase, the observations in these areas became increasingly positive, significantly less frequent, or disappeared after a few cycles after the learning settings were improved. As negative observations in categories 1 Understanding of the learning material and 2 Work with the support offers disappeared, the observations on cooperative group work became more frequent. The more positive or infrequent observations of the learning setting and the availability of support are, the more often students experiment themselves in groups without the help of pre-service chemistry teachers, they are more often an active part of the learning process, and work together cooperatively. In conclusion, the categories are interdependent. According to this, optimal framework conditions through flexible and adapted learning materials are preconditions for active and cooperative participation of all students as well as experimentation in an inquiry-based way. The support by explanatory videos and illustrated workplaces were found to be particularly positive. The resulting simple, fast, and direct help was very helpful for students.

The results show that the most frequently used graded tip cards are those for performing experiments. This observation is in line with the findings of other studies, which show that the use of graded tip cards have a positive impact on inquiry-based learning and students' autonomy during experimentation (Stäudel, 2009; Affeldt et al., 2019). Those grades which combine help for conduction of the experiment supported by images have been shown to be particularly helpful. At the beginning of this study, graded tip cards were rarely used, even though there was a high need for support during experimentation. Based on the data material, this finding can be attributed to the structure of graded tip cards. Often, the use of the tip cards was unclear because of their graded structure. The result is that students do not use the graded tip cards. Therefore, familiarity with using graded tip cards has a significant impact on students’ benefit from them.

The more familiar the students are with the use of graded tip cards, the higher the benefit the students can achieve (Affeldt et al., 2015, 2019). The learning setting in general and the use of graded tip cards in particular must therefore be as simple and intuitive as possible. Especially in the last cycles of the second development phase, it has been shown that as many opportunities for discussion as possible have a positive effect on the interaction within the group and on open inquiry experimentation. As several studies have shown cooperative learning promotes the development and advancement of communication competencies, problem-solving competencies, and critical thinking forced by the active participation of the students in the learning process through working in cooperative groups (Bowen, 2000; Prince, 2004; Eilks, 2005; Gillies, 2006; Lin, 2006; Prichard et al., 2006). Work tasks oriented to the cooperative method “think/pair/share” more often resulted in conversations within the group. As a result, support offers were more frequently discussed or used as conversation starters. As in Stäudel et al. (2007), our results show that graded tip cards, in general, and the grades for planning the experiment, in particular, were often an impulse for the students to share ideas and discuss opinions. It has been shown that increasing the communication between the students and the exchange about the learning material results in higher active participation and higher involvement of all students in experimenting. For example, the communication of the graded tip cards comes often to more inquiry-based learning and more exploration of different possible outcomes.

A factor that also influences active participation of students is the assistance of pre-service chemistry teachers. For inquiry-based learning, pre-service chemistry teachers must tutor and not focus primarily on teaching. Acting as a tutor is often hard for pre-service chemistry teachers and needs practice and self-reflection. Supervising several learning groups and giving detailed instructions on how to act as a coach are helpful.

The limited time that students spend in chemistry non-formal education offers is a particular challenge. In the limited number of hours that students mostly spend at the non-formal education offer, the learning offer and the learning setting have to be introduced and methods explained. This often means a lot of input for the students before the experiments start. As Affeldt et al. (2015) suggested, cooperation with teachers and integration into formal learning are very helpful here. The introduction to methods and tools as well as a further discussion of the results and findings in class offer more flexible time management and therefore more time for experimenting.

To sum up, based on the results, we suggest cooperating closely with teachers, using video or audio introductions instead of longer text sections, using common symbols, using a range of different support offers, labelling workplaces with pictures, and generally increasing the number of opportunities for conversation to promote interaction and communication between students.

Conclusions

This study is a case study since it only refers to students from southwest Germany. The study is therefore not to be regarded as representative. Nevertheless, the sample was large enough to get saturation of the data, so that results can also be generalized. The study shows how non-formal education offers in general and student laboratories, in particular, can be structured to encourage active participation and to support inquiry-based learning for all students in a learning group with a focus on their language skills. Furthermore, the study shows that learning material can be a best-practice example of the interaction of different factors. We need to highlight that it is possible to develop learning settings that enable active participation of all students. The success of learning settings depends on learning material that does not focus on one aspect only but addresses several simultaneously. Non-formal education offers like that are also suitable for pre-service teacher training. How to deal with language in various contents can be shown in concrete examples. Students' cooperative interaction and inquiry-based learning can be observed in small groups of students. Such observations are usually not possible in other situations, such as a school internship.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, S. K.; methodology, S. K.; software, S. K.; validation, S. K. and S. M.; formal analysis, S. K.; investigation, S. K.; resources, S. K.; data curation, S. K.; writing—original draft preparation, S. K.; writing—review and editing, S. K. and S. M.; visualization, S. K.; supervision, S. M.; project administration, S. K.; funding acquisition, S. M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

This research was part of the project “DiSSI – Diversity in Science towards Social inclusion – non-formal education for students' diversity” that is co-funded by the Erasmus + Programme of the European Union, under the grant number 612103-EPP-1_2019-1-DE-EPPKA3-IPI-SOC-IN. We would like to thank the European Union for its financial support. The European Commission's support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Notes and references

1. Affeldt F., Weitz K., Siol A., Markic S. and Eilks I., (2015), A Non-Formal Student Laboratory as a Place for Innovation in Education for Sustainability for All Students, Educ. Sci., 5(3), 238–254.
2. Affeldt F., Tolppanen S., Aksela M. and Eilks I., (2017), The potential of the non-formal educational sector for supporting chemistry learning and sustainability education for all students – a joint perspective from two cases in Finland and Germany, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18(1), 13–25.
3. Affeldt F., Markic S. and Eilks I., (2019), Students’ use of graded learning aids for inquiry learning, Chem. Action, (114), 28–33.
4. Blanchard M. R., Southerland S. A., Osborne J. W., Sampson V. D., Annetta L. A. and Granger E. M., (2010), Is inquiry possible in light of accountability? a quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction: Guided Inquiry and Verification Laboratory Instruction, Sci. Educ., 94(4), 577–616.
5. Booth A., (2003), Inclusion in the City: Selection, Schooling and Community, in Potts P. (ed.) Inclusion in the city: selection, schooling and community, RoutledgeFalmer.
6. Bowen C. W., (2000), A Quantitative Literature Review of Cooperative Learning Effects on High School and College Chemistry Achievement, J. Chem. Educ., 77(1), 116.
7. Brandt A., (2005), Förderung von Motivation und Interesse durch außerschulische Experimentierlabors, Cuvillier Verlag.
8. Buhlmann R. and Fearns A., (2000), Handbuch des Fachsprachenunterrichts Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung naturwissenschaftlich-technischer Fachsprachen, 6th edn, Gunter Narr Verlag.
9. Burmeister M., Rauch F. and Eilks I., (2012), Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and chemistry education, Chem Educ Res Pr., 13(2), 59–68.
10. Childs P., Markic S. and Ryan M., (2015), The Role of Language in the Teaching and Learning of Chemistry, in García-Martínez J. and Serrano-Torregrosa E. (ed.) Chemistry education, Wiley-VCH, ch. 17, pp. 421–445.
11. Chiu M.-H., Mamlok-Naman R. and Apotheker J., (2019), Identifying Systems Thinking Components in the School Science Curricular Standards of Four Countries, J. Chem. Educ., 96(12), 2814–2824.
12. Coll R. K., Gilbert J. K. and Streller S., (2013), How to benefit from the informal and interdisciplinary dimension of chemistry in teaching, in Eilks I. and Hofstein A. (ed.) Teaching Chemistry – A Studybook: A Practical Guide and Textbook for Student Teachers, Teacher Trainees and Teachers, Sense Publishers, pp. 241–268.
13. Dalton-Puffer C., (2011), Content-and-Language Integrated Learning: From Practice to Principles? Annu. Rev. Appl. Linguist., 31, 182–204.
14. Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission e.V., (2011), Jahresbericht 2010.
15. Eilks I., (2003), Kooperatives Lernen im Chemieunterricht (Teil 2). MNU J., 56(1), 51–54.
16. Eilks I., (2005), Experiences and Reflections about Teaching Atomic Structure in a Jigsaw Classroom in Lower Secondary School Chemistry Lessons, J. Chem. Educ., 82(2), 313.
17. Eilks I. and Markic S., (2015), Student Teachers’ Needs and Concerns, in Gunstone R. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Science Education, Springer Netherlands, pp. 1010–1012.
18. Eilks I. and Ralle B., (2002), Partizipative Fachidaktische Aktionsforschung Ein Modell für eine begründete und praxisnahe curriculare Entwicklungsforschung in der Chemiedidaktik, CHEMKON, (1), 13–18.
19. Eilks I., Rauch F., Ralle B. and Hofstein A., (2013), How to Allocate the Chemistry Curriculum Between Science and Society, in Eilks I. and Hofstein A. (ed.) Teaching Chemistry – A Studybook, SensePublishers, pp. 1–36.
20. Engeln K., (2004), Schülerlabors: authentische, aktivierende Lernumgebungen als Möglichkeit, Interesse an Naturwissenschaften und Technik zu wecken, Logos.
21. Euler M., (2005), Schülerinnen und Schüler als Forscher: Informelles Lernen im Schülerlabor, Naturwissenschaften im Unterricht Physik, (16), 4–12.
22. European Commission. Directorate General for Research and Innovation, (2020), Science education: achievements in Horizon 2020 and recommendations on the way forward, Publications Office.
23. Geier R., Blumenfeld P. C., Marx R. W., Krajcik J. S., Fishman B., Soloway E. and Clay-Chambers J., (2008), Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 45(8), 922–939.
24. Gilbert J. K., (2007), The characteristics of the gifted and exceptionally able in science, in Taber K. (ed.) Science education for gifted learners, Routledge, pp. 15–31.
25. Gillies R. M., (2006), Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative and small-group learning, Br. J. Educ. Psychol., 76(2), 271–287.
26. Gogolin I., (2008), Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule, 2., unveränd. Aufl. Waxmann.
27. Groß K. and Reiners C. S., (2012), Experimente alternativ dokumentieren, CHEMKON, 19(1), 13–20.
28. Guderian P., (2007), Wirksamkeitsanalyse außerschulischer Lernorte der Einfluss mehrmaliger Besuche eines Schülerlabors auf die Entwicklung des Interesses an Physik.
29. Guderian P. and Priemer B., (2008), Interessenförderung durch Schülerlaborbesuche – eine Zusammenfassung der Forschung in Deutschland, Phys. Didakt. Sch. Hochsch., (2/7), 27–36.
30. Hofer E., Abels S. and Lembens A., (2018), Inquiry-based learning and secondary chemistry education – a contradiction? RISTAL, (1), 51–65.
31. Hofstein A. and Kempa R. F., (1985), Motivating strategies in science education: attempt at an analysis, Eur. J. Sci. Educ., 7(3), 221–229.
32. Hofstein A., Navon O., Kipnis M. and Mamlok-Naaman R., (2005), Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 42(7), 791–806.
33. Huwer J. and Seibert J., (2018), A New Way to Discover the Chemistry Laboratory: The Augmented Reality Laboratory-License, World J. Chem. Educ., 6(3), 124–128.
34. Kipnis M. and Hofstein A., (2008), The Inquiry Laboratory as a Source for Development of Metacognitive Skills, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 6(3), 601–627.
35. KMK, (2005), Beschlüsse der Kultusministerkonferenz: Bildungsstandards im Fach Chemie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss. Beschluss vom 16.12.2004.
36. Krause M. and Eilks I., (2014), Tablet-Computer als Unterrichtswerkzeug für Lehrkräfte – Allgemeine Hinweise und Beispiele aus dem Chemieunterricht, in Maxton-Küchenmeister J. and Meßinger-Koppelt J. (ed.) Digitale Medien im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht, Joachim Herz Stiftung Verlag, pp. 64–69.
37. Kuckartz U., (2018), Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung, 4. Auflage. Beltz Juventa.
38. Laudonia I., Mamlok-Naaman R., Abels S. and Eilks I., (2018), Action research in science education – an analytical review of the literature, Educ. Action Res., 26(3), 480–495.
39. Lee O., (2001), Culture and Language in Science Education: What Do We Know and What Do We Need to Know? J. Res. Sci. Teach., 38(5), 499–501.
40. Lee O., (2005), Science Education with English Language Learners: Synthesis and Research Agenda, Rev. Educ. Res., 75, 491–530.
41. Lee O., Llosa L., Grapin S., Haas A. and Goggins M., (2019), Science and language integration with English learners: a conceptual framework guiding instructional materials development, Sci. Educ., 103(2), 317–337.
42. Lee O., Bauler C. V. and Kang E. J. S., (2022), “Doing” Science, Using Language, NYS TESOL J., 9(1), 13.
43. Leisen J., (2010), Handbuch Sprachförderung im Fach: Sprachsensibler Fachunterricht in der Praxis; Grundlagenwissen, Anregungen und Beispiele für die Unterstützung von sprachschwachen Lernern und Lernern mit Zuwanderungsgeschichte beim Sprechen, Lesen, Schreiben und Üben im Fach, Varus-Verl.
44. Leisen J., (2015), Planung von CLIL-Unterricht, Z. Für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht Didakt. Method. Im Bereich Dtsch. Als Fremdspr., 20(2), 45–58.
45. Lemke J. L., (1998), Teaching All the Languages of Science: Words, Symbols, Images and Actions, Unpublished.
46. Lin E., (2006), Cooperative Learning in the Science Classroom, Sci. Teach., 73(5), 35–39.
47. Lynch S., (2001), “Science for All” is not equal to “One Size Fits All”: Linguistic and Cultural Diversity and Science Education Reform, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 38(5), 622–627.
48. Markic S., (2017), Chemistry Teachers’ Pedagogical Scientific Language Knowledge, in Finlayson O., McLoughlin E., Erduran S. and Childs P. (ed.) Research, Practice and Collaboration in Science Education. Proceedings of the ESERA 2017 Conference, Dublin City University, pp. 178–185.
49. Markic S. and Childs P., (2016), Language and the teaching and learning of chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 17(3), 434–438.
50. Markic S., Broggy J. and Childs P., (2013), 5. How to deal with linguistic issues in chemistry classes, in Hofstein A. and Eilks I. (ed.) Teaching Chemistry – A Studybook, Sense Publishers, pp. 127–152.
51. Minner D. D., Levy A. J. and Century J., (2010), Inquiry-based science instruction-what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 47(4), 474–496.
52. OECD, (2009), PISA 2006 Technical report, OECD.
53. OECD, (2012), Are Students More Engaged When Schools Offer Extracurricular Activities? (18).
54. OECD, (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed, OECD.
55. Osborne J., (2002), Science Without Literacy: a ship without a sail? Camb. J. Educ., 32(2), 203–218.
56. Palmer D. H., (2009), Student interest generated during an inquiry skills lesson, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 46(2), 147–165.
57. Postman N. and Weingartner C., (1971), Teaching as a Subversive Activity, Delta.
58. Prichard J. S., Bizo L. A. and Stratford R. J., (2006), The educational impact of team-skills training: preparing students to work in groups, Br. J. Educ. Psychol., 76(1), 119–140.
59. Prince M., (2004), Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. J. Eng. Educ., 93(3), 223–231.
60. Raguse K., Weber-Peukert G., Woldt P. and Lotz A., (2013), Individuelle Förderung im Chemieunterricht – Der Förderkreis am Beispiel der Unterrichtseinheit “Laborführerschein”, CHEMKON, 20(4), 183–190.
61. Raviv A., Cohen S. and Aflalo E., (2019), How Should Students Learn in the School Science Laboratory? The Benefits of Cooperative Learning, Res. Sci. Educ., 49(2), 331–345.
62. Rennie L. J., (2014), Learning Science Outside of School, in Handbook of Research on Science Education, Abell S. K. and Lederman N. G. (ed.) Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 120–144.
63. Sadeh I. and Zion M., (2009), The development of dynamic inquiry performances within an open inquiry setting: a comparison to guided inquiry setting, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 46(10), 1137–1160.
64. Scholz M., Dönges C., Risch B. and Roth J., (2016), Anpassung von Arbeitsmaterialien für selbstständiges Arbeiten von Schülerinnen und Schülern mit kognitiven Beeinträchtigungen in Schülerlaboren – Ein Pilotversuch, Z. Für Heilpädag., 67(7), 318–328.
65. Sliwka A., (2010), From Homogeneity to Diversity in German Education, in Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (ed.) Educating Teachers for Diversity: Meeting the Challenge, Educational research and innovation, OECD, pp. 205–216.
66. Stäudel L., (2009), Aufgaben mit gestuften Hilfen Eine selbstdifferenzierende Lernumgebung am Beispiel von osmose und erbrennung, Unterricht Chemie, 20(111/112), 72–77.
67. Stäudel L., Franke-Braun G. and Schmidt-Weigand F., (2007), Komplexität erhalten – auch in heterogenen Lerngruppen: aufgaben mit gestuften Lernhilfen, CHEMKON, 14(3), 115–122.
68. Stinken-Rösner L., Rott L., Hundertmark S., Baumann T., Menthe J., Hoffmann T., et al., (2020), Thinking Inclusive Science Education from two Perspectives: inclusive Pedagogy and Science Education, RISTAL, 3, 30.
69. Swanborn P. G., (1996), A common base for quality control criteria in quantitative and qualitative research, Qual. Quant., 30(1), 19–35.
70. Taber K. S., (2014), Constructing Active Learning in Chemistry: Concepts, Cognition and Conceptions, in Devetak I. and Glažar S. A. (ed.) Learning with Understanding in the Chemistry Classroom, Springer Netherlands, pp. 5–23.
71. Tolsdorf Y. and Markic S., (2018), Participatory Action Research in University Chemistry Teacher Training, Cent. Educ. Policy Stud. J., 8(4), 89–108.
72. Wavering M. J., (2011), Piaget's Logic of Meanings: Still Relevant Today, Sch. Sci. Math., 111(5), 249–252.
73. Witteck T., Most B., Kienast S. and Eilks I., (2007), A lesson plan on ‘methods of separating matter’ based on the Learning Company Approach – A motivating frame for self-regulated and open lab-work in introductory secondary chemistry lessons, Chem Educ Res Pr., 8(2), 108–119.

---