Energy literacy for all? Exploring whether prior interest and energy knowledge mediate energy literacy development in a modern socio-scientific museum exhibition

Figures & data

Figure 1. A visitor receiving the mission to design their energy transition. Foto © Daniel Strauch & Deutsches Museum.

Figure 2. The stakeholders of the energy transition were depicted by actors on screens that activated when visitors passed by. Foto © Deutsches Museum.

Figure 3. Decision stations provided visitors with pro and contra arguments to various solutions. Foto © Daniel Strauch & Deutsches Museum.

Figure 4. One of ten thematic rooms that provided extensive and balanced background information on the various sub-topics of the energy transition. Foto © Deutsches Museum.

Figure 5. The playing-cards after the energy persona assessment. Foto © Daniel Strauch & Deutsches Museum.

Figure 6. Contra renewable energies-arguments (T1) printed against contra renewable-energies-arguments (T2) and bottlenecks in percentage.

Figure 7. Conceptual energy knowledge (T1) printed against arguments pro conventional energies (T2) and bottlenecks in percentage.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for study variables.

	T1					T2
	n	Min.	Max.	M	SD	Min.	Max.	M	SD
1. Interest in the energy transition	185	1.00	5.00	3.34	0.803	–	–	–	–
2. Conceptual energy knowledge	169	0.00	0.96	0.48	0.194	–	–	–	–
3. Number of renewable energies-arguments	176	0.00	9.00	3.23	2.102	0.00	14.00	3.28	2.292
4. Number of pro-arguments	176	0.00	7.00	2.12	1.387	0.00	7.00	2.06	1.323
5. Number of contra-arguments	176	0.00	5.00	1.00	1.090	0.00	11.00	1.35	1.462
6. Number of conventional energies-arguments	176	0.00	10.00	2.68	2.246	0.00	11.00	3.05	2.190
7. Number of pro-arguments	176	0.00	6.00	0.66	1.018	0.00	4.00	0.85	1.017
8. Number of contra-arguments	176	0.00	7.00	1.70	1.540	0.00	7.00	1.96	1.525

Table 2. Results of Wilcoxon signed-rank test for changes in student’s renewable energies-arguments before (T1) and after (T2) their exhibition-visit.

Variables	Negative ranks			Positive ranks			Ties	Z^1	p^22	r^3	Mdn T1	Mdn T2
	n	Mean rank	Sum of ranks	n	Mean rank	Sum of ranks
Number of arguments (T2-T1)	61	61.70	3764.00	62	62.29	3862.00	53	−0.125^b	.90	0.01	3	3
Pro-arguments (T2-T1)	60	59	3512.00	57	59.49	3391.00	59	−0.172^c	.86	0.00	2	2
Contra-arguments (T2-T1)	39	47.29	1844.50	69	58.57	4041.50	68	−3.516^b	<.001	0.27	1	1

Note: ¹Z = ^b Based on negative ranks, ^c Based on positive ranks.

² Significant p-values after Bonferroni correction in bold. Bonferroni-corrected p = .05/3 = .017.

³ r = effect size.

Table 3. Results of Wilcoxon signed-rank test for changes in student’s conventional energies-arguments before (T1) and after (T2) their exhibition-visit.

Variables	Negative ranks			Positive ranks			Ties	Z^1	p^2-value^2	r^3	Mdn T1	Mdn T2
	n	Mean rank	Sum of ranks	n	Mean rank	Sum of ranks
Number of arguments (T2-T1)	46	59.91	2756.00	78	64.03	4994.00	52	−2.834^b	.005	0.21	2	3
Pro-arguments (T2-T1)	25	44.54	1113.50	54	37.90	2046.50	97	−2.389^b	.017	0.18	0	1
Contra-arguments (T2-T1)	46	51.91	2388.00	67	60.49	4053.00	63	−2.461^b	.014	0.19	2	2

Note: ¹Z = ^b Based on negative ranks, ^c Based on positive ranks.

² Significant p-values after Bonferroni correction in bold. Bonferroni-corrected p = .05/3 = .017.

³ r = effect size.

Table 4. Results of multiple linear regressions testing the influence of students’ prior renewable energies-arguments (T1), conceptual energy knowledge and students interest in the energy transition on student’s renewable energies-arguments after their exhibition-visit (T2).

	Number of arguments (T2)
		CI 95%						CI 95%						CI 95%
		β	Lower	Upper	SE	p^1		β	Lower	Upper	SE	p^1		β	Lower	Upper	SE	p^1
(Intercept)		.00	.79	1.84	.26	<0.001		.00	−1.40	1.56	.75	.911		.00	−1.54	1.10	.67	.75
Number of Arguments (T1)		.56	.47	.74	.07	<0.001		–	–	–	–	–		.46	.35	.66	.08	<0.001
Conceptual energy knowledge		–	–	–	–	–		.31	1.92	5.36	.88	<0.001		.16	.23	3.50	.83	.03
Interest in the energy transition		–	–	–	–	–		.16	.03	.84	.21	.036		.10	−.08	.65	.19	.12
Explained variance, adj. R^2	.31***						.13***						.31***
Pro-Arguments (T2)
(Intercept)		.00	.86	1.51	.17	<0.001		.00	−.45	1.36	.46	.32		.00	−.83	.85	.43	.981
Pro-arguments (T1)		.43	.28	.54	.07	<0.001		–	–	–	–	–		.40	.25	.53	.07	<0.001
Conceptual energy knowledge		–	–	–	–	–		.18	.19	2.31	.54	.021		.09	−.34	1.65	.50	.194
Interest in the energy transition		–	–	–	–	–		.19	.06	.56	.13	.016		.17	.05	.51	.12	.018
Explained variance, adj. R^2	.18***						.07**	.07					.22***
Contra-Arguments (T2)
(Intercept)		.00	.47	1.00	.13	<0.001		.00	−1.20	.74	.49	.640		.00	−.96	.86	.45	.914
Contra-arguments (T1)		.46	.44	.79	.09	<0.001		–	–	–	–	–		.36	.29	.69	.10	<0.001
Conceptual energy knowledge		–	–	–	–	–		.31	1.19	3.4	.7	<0.001		.20	.44	2.65	.56	.007
Interest in the energy transition		–	–	–	–	–		.08	−.13	.40	.14	.321		.02	−.21	.30	.13	.738
Explained variance, adj. R^2	.21***						.10***						.21***

Note: ¹ Significant p-values after Bonferroni correction in bold. Bonferroni-corrected p = .05/3 = .017.

Table 5. Results of multiple linear regressions testing the influence of students’ prior conventional energies-arguments (T1), conceptual energy knowledge and students interest in the energy transition on student’s conventional energies-arguments after their exhibition-visit (T2).

	Number of arguments (T2)
		CI 95%						CI 95%						CI 95%
		β	Lower	Upper	SE	p^1		β	Lower	Upper	SE	p^1		β	Lower	Upper	SE	p^1
(Intercept)		.00	1.02	1.81	.20	<0.001		.00	−1.09	1.80	.73	.627		.00	−.73	1.71	.62	.429
Number of Arguments (T1)		.62	.50	.72	.06	<0.001		–	–	–	–	–		.56	.42	.68	.07	<0.001
Conceptual energy knowledge		–	–	–	–	–		.32	1.95	5.34	.86	<0.001		.10	−.38	2.72	.78	.138
Interest in the energy transition		–	–	–	–	–		.10	−.12	.68	.20	.168		.06	−.19	.49	.17	.385
Explained variance, adj. R^2	.39***						.12***						.37***
Pro-arguments (T2)
(Intercept)		.00	.38	.70	.08	<0.001		.00	−.87	.44	.33	.521		.00	−.93	.30	.31	.318
Pro-arguments (T1)		.46	.32	.59	.07	<0.001		–	–	–	–	–		.36	.12	.49	.07	<0.001
Conceptual energy knowledge		–	–	–	–	–		.36	1.09	2.64	.39	<0.001		.24	.51	2.04	.39	.001
Interest in the energy transition		–	–	–	–	–		.04	−.13	.23	.09	.592		.08	−.08	.27	.09	.277
Explained variance, adj. R^2	.21***						.12***						.23***
Contra-Arguments (T2)
(Intercept)		.00	.78	1.36	.15	<0.001		.00	−.26	1.86	.54	.138		00	.00	1.86	.47	.049
Contra-arguments (T1)		.53	.40	.65	.06	<0.001		–	–	–	–	–		.51	.37	.65	.07	<0.001
Conceptual energy knowledge		–	–	–	–	–		.18	.22	2.71	.63	.022		.05	−.74	1.51	.57	.496
Interest in the energy transition		–	–	–	–	–		.07	−.16	.42	.15	.375		−.01	−.27	.24	.13	.907
Explained variance, adj. R^2	.27***						.03***						.26***

Note: ¹Significant p-values after Bonferroni correction in bold. Bonferroni-corrected p = .05/3 = .017.

Table 6. Results of necessary conditions analysis.

Outcomes	Determinants	n	Ceiling line	c-accuracy	d^1	p-Value^2
Contra renewable energies-arguments (T2)	Contra renewable energies-arguments(T1)	175	ce fdh	100%	0.120	<0.001
	Conceptual energy knowledge	161	ce fdh	100%	0.200	0.302
	Interest in the energy transition	175	ce fdh	100%	0.200	0.374
Pro conventional energies-arguments (T2)	Pro conventional energies-arguments (T1)	157	ce fdh	100%	0.000	1.000
	Conceptual energy knowledge	144	ce fdh	100%	0.205	0.016
	Interest in the energy transition	157	ce fdh	100%	0.188	0.159

Note. ¹d = necessary condition effect size standing for the proportion of the scope above the ceiling: d = C/S. It ranges from 0 to 1 (0 ≤ d ≤ 1) and indicates to what extent the condition is necessary for the outcome: 0 < d < 0.1 ‘small effect’, 0.1 ≤ d < 0.3 ‘medium effect’, 0.3 ≤ d < 0.5 ‘large effect’, and d ≥ 0.5 ‘very large effect’.

² Significant p-values after Bonferroni correction in bold. Required p-value for significance after Bonferroni correction = .05/3 = .017.

Data availability statement

The data that form the basis for the conclusions of this article will be provided by the corresponding author upon request.