Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Conceptualization in Astronomy Education
Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Conceptualization in Astronomy Education
Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Conceptualization in Astronomy Education
IN ASTRONOMY EDUCATION
Copyright 1990
by
Michael David Reynolds
ACKNCWUlDGaiENTB
chairperson,
dedication.
The
helped to make
insight
this
like
to
and
his
thank
of
for
that has
a new quest
knowledge: without
been possible.
their
his doctoral
in
life.
an experience
doctoral
his
family
and guidance
committee,
support
and
committee has
their
all
be overstated,
The
for
it
is
TABLE OF CONTENTS
pane
ACKNOWLECXBMB^
ABSTRACT
CHAPTERS
1
INTRODUCTION
REVIEW OF UTERATURE
24
Population
26
28
Study Design
Final Study Design and Implementation
Pilot
31
40
40
42
46
S3
65
Variables
Review
5
of the
68
Results
74
75
75
78
Classroom
APPENDICES
A
B
80
...
CODED DATA
82
83
.
85
88
REFEFeJCES
91
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
95
December, 1990
Chairman: Mary Budd Rowe, Ph.D.
Major Department: Instruction and Curriculum
Numerous
science
conceptual
Classroom
three-dimensional.
issues
such
is
often the
This study
pairs
case
in
11th
is
more
to
minimizes needs
likely
often
two-dimensions;
physics
students
as
they
in
the classroom.
grade standard
discussion
naturally
are
Several astronomy
three-dimensional topic
was conducted
like-sex
of
this
are
presentations
Textbooks present
to display
Pairing
for
variety
direct
comes
closer
probes,
to
and pair
and depth.
1.
likely
who
model
three-dimensionally
will
more
Students
2.
exposure
more
will
Pairs
3.
preference
Males
4.
Students
provided
use.
including
Activities
were
was a
choice
why
information,
videotaped
correlation
was determined
It
.05
level.
who
were
not
Pairs with
case
of
pairs
and
likely
of
The
a 16-card
was
pair
were provided
pen,
and
evaluation.
for
fiashlight.
Statistics
of
who modeled
three-dimensionally
their
at
p <
earth
to
science
including
Materials
science or mathematics,
prefer
more
later
that
those
for
determination
ANOVA
paper
spheres,
Each
phase changes.
lunar
phases occur.
the
disks,
mathematics
or
in
background
asked
science
strong
model three-dimensionally.
likely
model
will
exhibit
more
model three-dimensionally.
likely
that
will
model
significance
three-dimensionally.
was
Possible
in
in
the
course preference
means.
Based
on
dimensionality
this
and
study,
student
instructors
should
misconceptions.
Whenever
publishers
should
three-dimensional
consider
ancillaries.
modeling
aware
be
of
possible,
Authors and
suggestions
and
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The conceptual Issues
difficulties
troubles
Involved
In
to
be addressed
learning astronomy.
from
arising
the
coordinate
polar
Involve
systems
of
focus
like-sex,
of
study relate to
this
In
In
unfamiliar
in
this
introductory
Pairs
study.
physics
of
the
were
students
11th-grads
the
high
subjects
the
school
in
this
Investigation.
how
on
students
well
three-dimensional
i.e.,
and
The
teachers
rely
of
develop
coordinate
In
on
astronomical
particular.
phenomena and
Typically
two-dimensional
static
system
Is
In
a polar
diagrams,
three-dimensional
working
facility
celestial
In addition, celestial
representations
can
polar coordinate
constant motion.
In
coordinate system.
there
i.e.,
static
two-dimensional
phenomena.
i.e.,
Teachers may
models which
physical
are
three
diagrams,
such
genre
as
in
of
in
models:
textbooks;
phenomenon
It
moon
occur.
The
some
investigate
will
of
how
concepts
twofold: (a) to
is
referred to
of the
11th
explain
to
try
examine the
If
represent their
Materials
ideas.
available to
subjects
the
permit
if
they elect
use them.
to
to
following
elements:
pairs
(a)
relationship
has the
grade
physics
11 th
like-sex
of
a stimulus problem:
(b)
(c)
is
perhaps unusual
to
use student
pairs
advantages:
the pair
variety
(c)
(a)
discussion
and depth
situation
comes
of
in
pairs.
this
case
like-sex;
is
more
likely
may be
mode
to
display the
and
the technique minimizes the necessity for direct probes from the
studies
actions
for
In
on science misconceptions.
analysis.
Video
and bias
tape
in
cognitive
records
of
the
to
be addressed
in
this
following:
1.
more
likely
to
two-
of
thart
those
rely
i.e.,
all,
exclusively
on
words-
The independent
model
used
by
two-dimensional,
Models
pair.
combination
three-dimensional,
the
of
Included
three-
no
are
The
model.
of
that
and two-dimensional,
or
those
Statistical
ANOVA.
post-hoc
differences
analysis
Tukey)
(specifically,
contrasting
models used
to
moon
also be examined.
In
addition,
between the
pairs
who used
three-dimensional
to
in
grasp of dynamics
particularly
In
relation to
over time.
2.
Pairs
in
course experience
will
more
explanation.
likely
in
the earth
exhibit
three-dimensional
modeling
in
their
The independent
variable
or
physical
earth
the
either
number
used
was
determined
sciences,
by the
in
total
The dependent
sciences.
for its
explanation.
variable
was
the statistic of
choice.
3.
Pairs
which
in
either
modeling
three-dimensional
member
subjects
stronger
more
explanation
their
in
exhibits
will
exhibit
likely
rather
than
two-dimensional,
the
or
verbal explanation using no model over those for which the subject
The
was
independent variable
mean
the
of
(averaged
model each
explanation.
An examination
of
of the correlation
the
the
for
pair
was
Individual
The
pair).
used
for
its
the statistic of
choice.
4.
than
Male pairs
female pairs
will
will,
be more
due
likely
to
model
the overall
to
net
in
three-dimensions
number
of
science
courses taken.
Although
science,
subject,
i.e.,
all
the
they
students
in
were taking
the
physics,
typically
12th
in
grade
iikely
to
The independent
variable
variable
of
was
for
its
The dependent
explanation.
one-way
ANOVA was
analysis
using
used
Additional
hypothesis.
the
test
to
two-way
to
examine
relationships.
Variables
course
for
of
model employed
moon phenomenon.
following;
subjects,
A sample
of
all
that
astronomy
in
instruction
that
the materials
is
was given
reliability
of
case.
relies
also applicable.
the
to
same grade
the
was
In
to
results
and
for
and preconceptions
addition,
independent
lines
tests
of
of
in
in
is
science,
on physical models
These
a panel
devised.
was determined.
to
research
4 describes the
directions
In
misconceptions
of
this
taped
subjects
for
all
included
like-sex pairs.
and an Intercoder
rating
based
science
design
course.
to
the
for
environment,
same
randomly assigned
A system
sex,
subjects'
for
Controls
work
standardized
all
level in the
the
history,
Included
study
this
represent relationships
appear
in
Chapter
of the study.
hypotheses.
Chapter
S.
2.
Chapter
Conclusions and
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
reviewed
Literature
Investigation
this
for
The
that directly
relate to
astronomy
and
first
on
student
moon phenomena
physics.
citations
All
group
this
in
are
research-based studies.
document
citations
of
where the
this
or another are
The
compared.
efficacy of planetarium
relevant to this
are
empirical
The
2-4,
not
includes studies
The
group
of citations
are
Important
and
but
necessarily
final
supported
by
are
substrate
of
focused
investigations.
following tables, Table 2-1, Table 2-2, Table 2-3,
target
third
instruction.
which
This group
study.
population,
the
citation
citation's
claims or findings.
and Table
and
the
citation's
main
Table 2-1
Misconception Research
Investigator:
Dale
Target
Topic
Main
Preconceptions
Preconceptions are
Claiin or Finding
Population
Students
in Physics such
as motion implies
to
difficult
make
their conceptions.
Darch, Eaves;
1
986
Slow
Learning
Effectiveness of
Use
visual displays
significantiy-more effective
Linear motion
Disability
of visual display Is
device.
students
College
Hailoun,
Hestenes;
students
misconceptions
1985
about motion:
when
conception.
Lightman,
Sadler;
988
Elementary
Astronomy
teachers,
Preconceptions;
students
Earth's
shape
is
did not.
Lord;
1985
College
students
Visuo-spatlal
enhancement
Visuo-spatial understanding
Sneider,
Pulos;l983
3rd
8th
Misconceptions;
grade
Earth's shape,
students
gravity
Table 2-2
Misunderstanding, Models
Investigator:
Date
Bishop;
1980
Target
Topic
Projective
Students
Population
8lh grade
students
spatial abilities
models
who employed
addition to the
in
planetarium performed
significantly better.
College
astronomy
Spatal learning
in
astronomy
Spatial Learning
is
due
to
exercises.
College
Three-dimensional
astronomy
topics
Students
Two-dimensional
Pod more,
Reeh 1985
Three-dimensional model
versus three-
more
dimensional
to time.
effective
and can
is
relate
comet
models
Halley's
orbit
Rosenquist,
McDermott;
High school
Graphing concept
Students had a
Commercial
versus
Students performed
students
relating
1987
Shrigley;
1971
difficult
time
concepts.
6th grade
students
homemade models
significantly higher
exposed
to
when
commercial
models.
Sonntag;
1981
College
seniors
Spatial orientation
versus teaching
methods
Model
instruction
produced
Planetarijm
There
is
no
significant
versus class
difference In treatments;
teaching
females do better
in
In
Reed,
Campbell:
Is
more
Is
mo
planetarium.
1972
term than
the planetarium.
Roberts;
1970
Preschool;
Planetarium for
disadvant-
astronomy
aged
education
Planetarium for
Planetarium
made an
impression on participants,
There
Is
no
significant
understanding
instruct'on of
difference
three-dimensional
in
of
three-dimensional teaching.
Planetarium
in
the
versus classroom
classroom than
lecture
in
and comprehension
levels.
Table 2-4
Miscellaneous Papers
Investigator;
Dale
Bishop;
1977,1980
Target
Topic
Population
Astronomy
Astronomy
teachers
education
Review
of
astronomy
Retcher;
1977
8th
and
9th
grade
students
Traditional versus
participatory
planetarium
presentations
Giles;
1981
High school
students
Planetarium
clustering
and
advanced
There
is
no signifcant
difference
in
student
achievement due
to
presentation.
Clustering and
advanced
organizers significantly
organizers
Hashweh;
1988
Teachers
Science
Klopfer;
5th grade
Effectiveness of
1969
misconceptions
students
ESSP
astronomy
teachers
reinforce misconceptions.
ESSP
is
moderately
successful;
knowl^e also
3rd-5th
1982
grads
Reaves;
1984-1985
College
Russo;
Junior high
students
Traditional versus
participant-
oriented
Participant-oriented
planetarium
Astronomy course
popularity;
teaching methods
1983
students
Solar astronomy
lab
is
Table 2-4--continijed
InvestigaKr
Date
Sadler:
1987
Target
students,
teachers
Sadon;
1980
Topic
Popuiallon
Astronomy
High school
astronomy
Project
STAR;
new emphasis
on astronomy
Lunar astronomy
lab
more
Smitti;
1966
6th grade
Planetarium
students
versus classroom
College
Factual versus
students
conceptual
students
Astronomy
1973
teachers
Wright;
Secondary
in
in
the
in
Conceptual change
instruction
classroom than
Concept-instructed students
difference
Instruction
Astronomy
astronomy
1988
Wall;
realistic.
planetarium.
lecture
Targan;
STAR.
model
Astronomy
education
In
performance.
changed
Little
in
their
own
models.
teaching.
1969
students
Use
of the
planetarium
There
is
no
difference
significant
12
Preconception and misconception research
a great deal
received
of attention
investigation
this
is
in
an exposure
the
to
motion
Laws).
a straight
In
line
(e.g.,
the
in
during
instruction.
The
two groups.
of
constant
determine the
to
comprehension
It
displays,
appears from
in
9th-,
a classroom
was
control group
by visuo-spatial display.
visuo-spatial
charts.
physics.
students
learning-disabled students.
one
in
Galileo,
for
be
to
information
10th-,
of
difficulty
is
change even
difficult to
accepted viewpoint
currently
in
in
which bears on
of
an astronomical system
This concern
some
of
involved.
with
in
recent years.
in
was presented
the information
displays
their
article
were
that
static
two-dimensional
to
Three
units
were taught
to the
two groups.
planets, meteors
used
was presented a
the
text,
experimental
group,
receiving
the
text
same
The
with
The
units included
no
pictures.
information,
The
used visual
13
displays
presenting
supplemental
of
by the display.
based
study,
on
their
significantly-more
the
effective
information,
designed
content
instruction provided
teacher
the
with
expand
to
on
the
use
teachirrg
of
display
visual
device
for
that,
is
disabled
learning
text.
as the cause
gravitational
found that
the
of
attraction
95%
seasons,
of the
the
earth.
shape
the
of
and the
earth,
second-grade teachers
of
in
study predicted
their
was a
sphere.
5%
of the
of the
earth.
that students
it
round or a sphere.
is
to
This
be a
flat
another
is
in
science.
to
The
authors suggest an analogy that would help students deal with the
apparent
view the
appears
to
balloon
be a
from a distance,
When
Take
inconsistency.
(approximately 3 to
close to
flat
it
4 meters
is
surface.
in
its
large
diameter)
surface.
weather
balloon
will
to
see what
obviously a sphere.
the idea that the systems studied are not simply two-dimensional.
Spatial
therefore,
could
become a
factor
research conducted
students.
agree
the
In
learning
astronomy.
Some
through practice.
phenomenon and
visuo-spatlal
Lord
ability
can be influenced
Lord's overall
purpose was
an innate
is
exposure
through
acquired
are
abilities
environment.
introduction
see
to
one's
to
an Intervention
If
in
student population.
During
the
semester,
Lord
ran
an experiment
seminar,
of
experimental group
lecture,
and
was exposed
identical
laboratory.
to
shape
to
Additionally,
figures.
of the
visualization
of paper.
These required
were required
to
post
the control
tests.
and
the
geometric
envision
the
This
end,
the
addition,
The
administered
weekly biology
In
At the semester's
spatial
which two
in
Results
no such
interaction or grouping.
an
improvement
in
in
both
orientation.
why
had
third
of the
through
shape
of
model
selected.
misconceptions.
flat
flat,
Their
demonstrated
results
range
of
rest of the
planet
was round,
was
Bishop (I960)
reported on
results
eighth-grade
These
students
included
planetarium,
model
student
versus
initial
students
spatial
significant
and
manipulations
final
spatial
better
on the
was found
ability
experience
with
of the
98
of
total
groups.
three
drawings
the
and
experimental
addition
in
the
to
was measured.
Additionally,
unit
to
favoring
significantly
ability
be
test
than
the
"significantly
prior
to
unit,
(p.
and
work).
manipulation-drawings
difference
significantly
model
planetarium
Males improved
pianetarium.
abilities
Piaget's
randomly assigned
experimental
traditional
showed a
Results
were
research on planetarium
of
model
group
control
correlated
1010A).
did;
with
the
The researcher
ability,
manipulation
were
Important
(1989)
investigated
the
instruction
college-level
astronomy students.
using models
It
of
spatial
was stated
to
be
that
thinking
in
experiences
who
particular topics.
is
apparently
due
to
the
16
general class environment (e.g teacher presentation of topics, class
arrangement,
student
Interaction)
rather
than
specific
course
moon
two
of
Piagets
projective
space"
"could
(p-
Grasp
not
2539A).
figures found
12%
concepts.
population
only
in
investigated
(1980)
spatial
the
Kelsey
use
the
When
mental
referring
most textbooks
in
to
structures
the
detailing the
for
projective
drawings and
top-on
many
of
three-dimensional
topics
astronomy
in
relationships:
thus,
requires
projected
many
task.
an opportunity
Podmore and
Is
Their
to
orbit
much more
spatial
student
comet
parameters
in
innovative
educational
apparatus
to
(p.
490).
helped
those
who
particular,
and
to
constructed
programs.
three-dimensional models
orbital
model.
relationships'
of Halleys wasnt
Halleys
some
try
Fleet (1985)
Comet
Halley's
model
illustrate
of
provide
orbital
the
to
introduce the
parameters of Halleys
student
with
model
17
and
Comet do
Halley's
not
lie
the
In
same two-dimensional
plane, the
understanding
pertinent
of
system
concepts:
only
time-frame
to
they
Unfortunately,
some
same
the
of
earth's
learning
incorporates
addressed
challenges
position.
support their
to
however,
model,
Their
an
in
model not
presented
also
It
and
comet's
the
relate
cast
relationships
Their physical
frame representation.
time
appropriate
solar
In
this
commercial
and
investigation.
Shrigley
(1971)
of
students
Results
students.
taught
models scored
with
of the
higher on
homemade equipment
is
methods
in
ability
The teaching
of
and
and
than
style
versus
seniors
the
enrolled
in
of
three
student
different
spatial
science methods
in
the planetarium.
items
lesser quality
to
astronomy
college
equipment
due
orientation
courses.
astronomy of
a test of recall
homemade
teaching
in
the
commercially-constructed
significantly
of
Based on
this
ranking
each
ranking, students
were
ability,
18
must
that
astronomy
be
course
taken
posttest.
observable
more
planetarium.'
In
To accomplish
three
of
Dobson
due
found
no
in
not
to
that
in
rotation,
to
to
do better
do
better
most students
master
and
learning
able
the
the
school
concepts:
differences
environments.
versus
middle
and classroom-planetarium
treatments,
level
135
of
moon,
planetarium
grade
require
by the
Investigated
(1983)
major astronomical
of the
olassroom.
two-dimensional
higher on
ability
planetarium
environments
planetarium,
significant
to the learning
found an interaction
Dobson
the
of
combined.
the
provided
spatial
instruction
the classroom,
in
revolution,
is
positional
of
significantly
medium
to
concrete
design,
classroom
more-traditional
retention
and
environments
learning
activities
ability
when designing
instruction
4783A)
(p.
pretest-posttest
students.
the
method performed
classroom-celestial globe
'the
orientation
spatial
consideration
for
astronomy.
the
that
into
techniques
concepts
at
that
in
in
the
the
the
fifth
required
abilities.
The effectiveness
method
for
observer's
teaching
latitude
of the planetarium
selected
versus
method and
astronomical
celestial
pole
celestial
concepts
altitude,
globe
such
ecliptic,
as
right
19
ascension and declination was compared by Reed (1970) and Reed and
Campbeil (1972).
Resuits
was more
effective
globe
of
studies
the
than
was
differences
the
indicated
pianetarium
the
celestiai
presentation
No expianation
in
for these
postuiated.
in
globe.
of
total
The astronomical
concepts that were studied include the motions of the sun, superior
planets,
celestial
and the
was
in
the affective
significantly
sixth-grade
precession
earth's
domain between
in
either
classroom
as
students
the
term
short
the
the
visual
target
difference
in
treatment.
effects
of
presentation
population
than
retention
was no
instruction
compared
(1967)
with
and
motion:
better
Rosemergy
planetarium
the
stars;
Reed concluded
sphere.
instruction
instruction
of
the
of
using
the
with
339
the
study.
moon and
the
Students were
20%
planetarium;
20%
planetarium; and
to
for
20%
100% classroom
exposure.
80%
60%
classroom, then
classroom then
ANCOVA was
used
three exposures.
chance.
that
males demonstrated a
20
females
moon
the
of
then
did.
Twiest
investigated
(1989)
differences
among 432
fourth,
astronomy
curriculum
which
comprehension
used
respect
to
And
at
the
for fourth
and
and
an
versus
the
and
favoring
the
grade students
fifth
comprehension-level
were found
differences
in
knowledge
differences
knowledge-level
both
significant
cognitive
grade students
planetarium
the
analyzed
questions.
sixth
Significant
levels.
and
attitudinal
and
fifth,
Achievement was
classroom.
with
phases
of the
for
three
all
questions.
certain
misconceptions
student conceptions
of
some
reinforce
motion of an
include
object,
shown
that
some
high
notes
object,
force
Additionally
school teachers
hold
placed
on an
has
research
same
the
that
These
misconceptions.
incorrect
ESSP was
successful
taught.
Project
the
effectiveness
(ESSP) astronomy
in
mastering
The
fifth
graders
ESSP astronomy
students
some
also
program.
of
of
the
materials.
and models.
with
study
materials
were moderately
of the astronomical
gained
topics that
knowledge
about
were
certain
ESSP
However,
Klopfer's
article
was vague
several
irt
aspects.
to
tell
whether concepts
like
the phases of
the
of junior
of the
how
set
to
Before collecting
Data
collected by students
sunspot progression.
able to determine the period of rotation of the sun from the velocity
of
sunspot movement.
measured solar
this
solar
the
Additionally,
students
From
rays
From data
collection
and
direct observations,
to
this
make
of
Science
use
its
for Astrophysics
of
the
how
the
of this
Astronomical
misconceptions
in
Roots)
astronomy.
Foundation-funded
Project
STAR
has begun
Project
astronomy
to
STAR
education
that
calculations,
reading
unknown.
in
is
how
student learning
Russo stated
for
the
22
Sadler (1987),
Accorfling to
commencement
spring
this
A random
Harvard University.
exercise at
at a time to explain
The videotaped
Earth.
Most
correctly.
was
Earth
closer to
the
of
sun
the
in
to
the
tut
earth on
of the
rays of sunlight
than
the earth
true:
the
in
winter.
closer
is
in
its
The
hemisphere's winter.
rotational
its
In
STAR
Project
why
summer
the
the
students
is
personnel
have
also
In
the summer.
astronomy
studied
used a student
test covering
In
two levels.
One
as the distance from the earth to the moon and time of moonrise
certain phases.
The second
level of
not
use
materials
models,
for
at
the
Although they
Harvard group
felt
that
of
New England
made measurements
of the
they were
able to
construct
a three-dimensional
private
moon, both
From
this
data,
polar coordinate
23
model
of
moon from
First,
moon's diameter.
to
assessment
of student
orbit.
This collection of studies are for the most part too general to
give
useful
astronomical
insight
into
relationships.
They
yield
which
have
relations
some
usefulness
for
little
why
with
time
dependent
understanding of
how
illustrating
time
and
spatial
results.
of this investigat'on
was
to
do a careful study
of
and thus
to
associated
students
arrive at
with
the
decisions
to
phenomena.
use
This
materials
for
in
investigation
modeling
examines
phenomena
in
the process.
CHAPTERS
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The teaching and
due
to
the
learning
astronomy
of
made
often
is
difficult
into class
discipline.
presents
the
Additionally,
three-dimensional
topics
problem
of
that
change
correct
cyclic
in
representation
instruction
astronomy
in
instruction
Cartesian
fundamentally
knowledge
the design
system
of
employed.
Is
three-dimensional
of the thought
with
familiar
astronomy
Since
time
of
over time
fashion
subject,
This
study
examine one
will
is
additional
instruction.
of
in
these
grade enrolled
in
Fundamental
Physics.
Participants
student
plans
after
first
of the student,
high
school,
and
subject preference.
To
sequence
procedure
to
be used
of four
cards of an apple
24
in
in
dealing
25
The purpose
was
of this
to
make
certain that
each
pair understood
member
package
of eight different
of 16 cards.
The
was asked
pair
iunar
combine
to
them
three-dimensional
pencil,
received a
total
After
or
their
flat
illustrate
either
in
use
for
to
a two-
representation.
circular disks,
in
explanation,
their
if
will
they
desire.
The
be videotaped
for later
The population
The
students.
participants by
of
the study
like-sex pairs
random
itself
was
is
selection.
In
this
study
all
Standard
of potential
participants are
Caucasian.
The design
following
1.
play a part
2.
In their
to
three-dimensional explanation
their
approach or
3.
examine the
topics:
the degree
in
of
correct
background from
their less
moon
differ
successful peers.
is;
in
26
student
prior
4.
science
course
how
and
experience
it
5.
the choice of
to
correct
deveiopment of an expianation
6.
identification
of resources
for
sequence and
the
of
materiais
to
ieft
to
research
in
is
the students:
PoDuiation
As demonstrated by
the
at
ali
age and
topics
and
backgrounds.
The
courses
many
state of Florida, as in
in
astronomy
states,
9 through 12)
ievei.
steilar/gaiactic
aii
ieveis
No
Other courses
astronomy
devotes
25%
into
iaboratory-based.
cover
astronomy,
of
science courses
in
is
and
astronomy-reiated
the course to
include a
astronomy.
number
of
Earth
topics.
in
topics,
addition,
science,
usuaily
taught
at
the
topics.
science
astronomy
earth
Students
considered
eighth-grade
inciuding
the Junior
advanced
ievei,
cover
27
permission was granted by the Duval County School
Written
Board
Jacksonville,
in
Florida,
principal
to
use
Florida.
twelve,
during
year,
it
of
the
school
the
Physics
of
Standard,
year-long course.
Studv_PoDulation
Pilot
Two
classes of Chemistry
Solar/Galactic
studies.
assigned
initial
pilot
the
refine
to
permission
Study
was secured
Population
for
Student
procedures.
final
video taping
for
Final
for
pool
for
of
parent
Physics
those to be used
of
and
Standard
used as a
in
were
in
The names
district's
instructors.
of
additional
possible
rolls
of
the
final
the
to
two
Physics
study,
from
the
Standard
Only Caucasian
variable.
After coding,
number
all
computerized
selection
all
were input
in
a random
pairs.
26
Study Design
Pilot
The
pilot
was asked
each
of
in
the
first
pilot
in
changes
in
pair: "It Is
The question
is
in
appearance or phases?
of us
all
have
separately or together.
no table
front
in
of
them.
for
later
answer
initial
itself.
total
phase of the
In
that several
needed
to
researcher
of
their
students
was used
changes needed
reading
be made.
to
the
instructions
researcher from
it
for
this
was determined
to
do with
and questions.
interfering
pairing.
It
with
the
of
the
This
would
process.
The
was determined
that group
males tended
studies
first
prevent the
pairing
10 pairs
of
pilot study.
review of the
to
when a male-female
pair
was
in
the
interviewed.
preliminary
Finally,
pilot
a set of
29
lunar phases cards or photos
box,
provide
to
students
with
materials
with
a resource
the
lunar
weaknesses
ot the
illustrate
to
first
Into
account.
a female
In
front
to
The
play.
directions
voice.
would be seated
table
were recorded on
chairs behind
In
students
the
of
were recorded
in
table,
on the
the
in
A
phases
first
was designed
set of cards
for
to
In
correct lunar
The phases
sequences,
is
with
of
to
pairs.
illustrate
Two
sets
of the
of
phase sequence.
moon cards
blue cardboard
one through
was
sixteen.
The
sixteen cards,
were prepared.
line,
divided and
This
'top'
was made
the
at
moon.
of the
lettering
from
in
In
later
coding of data.
Additionally,
had
to
arrived
at
an agreement on how
to
explain
once the
their
pair
proposed
30
sequences.
were seif-conscious
first
the
one responsible
this
would possibly
of the
student
pairs
was
disk
survey
student
in
form,
on
tried
upon
student participants
the
be
in
their
a variety of
to
draw
The
and
pilot
was completed by
room
the
largest
third
to collect
This survey
arrival
explain
cardboard disks.
blue,
was designed
the study,
to
tiashlight,
flat
largest
information
the
second
yellow,
to
sequence then
balls,
they appeared
if
potential problem.
the
for
was
it
pilot
camera and
for activating
alleviate
provided
Materials
entire
phase
of the video
used
for
the
From the
pairs,
final
pilot
changes
in
taped
the
made
instructions
to
were
study.
made.
An
Several changes
These included a
in
the resource
due
Soma
minor
on-the-table
comments on
some
balls
trom the
pilot
to
students'
study to the
final
not
changed
31
imply the
(blue),
(white)
the
If
students so desired.
It
who picked up
the student
member.
the
Influence a pair's
the
moon phases
second phase
Uils
To attempt
Into
two packages
In
attempt
phase
of
the
new moon
study
pilot
to
arrangement
The
to
and make-up.
little
full
moon
cards.
tested
methodology changes with two sets of students, one male pair and
one female
pair.
changes made
that
In
it
was determined
the
Final
Upon
selection
and random
pairing
for
letter
of
student and
complete and
return.
parent or guardian
for
an experimental
In
run.
of
the
student to
Materials
were returned
to
the resource
32
a kitchen-type
box,
closed
as
so
plastic
not
to
in
sealable
divert
its
during
was then
which
container,
attention
moon sequence.
the
lay-out
pair's
respective envelope.
the
In
same sequence
each
in
of the two
was
The manner
elimirrated
in
the
sequence or
correct
sequence.
In addition,
participation
When
students'
first
between the
the researcher
explanatory
letter
parents or guardians.
to
that
to
students
for
Upon
arrival
to
the
to the
library.
were given
at the
take
to
home
to
The
script
for the
final
this
This study
occurs
in
is
based on teamwork.
to the
You
These are
problem presented.
on a
final
sequence.
of the
receive
will
a sequence according
settling
proposed
he would go
pair,
as follows:
is
the
members.
pair
was ready
begin
to
phase
to
a set
You
talk things
of
a sequence
be arranged
will
need
in
to
over before
sequence.
Once a sequence
is
agreed upon, be
33
ready to explain the reasons for your sequence.
other
normal tones,
in
enough time
to
You may
talk to
You
its
will
each
have
settle
explanation.
The
package
first
cards,
of
practice
for
for the
will
feel
you
sure
Pick up package
When you
he
to
Lay out
are both
[pause of
this time.'
three seconds].
'The
last
moon.
of the
Each
need
to
that both of
of
you
will
have a package.
of the
all
sequence and
to
You
to
make an
'In
explain
sequence
the
for
will
be recorded.
untit
find
will
a sequence
to
work out a
an
proposed-again,
at this time."
your assistance
make
into
of three seconds],
Thank you
However, you
you can
happen?
^ause
will
develop an explanation.
at this time,
As
strip.
why does
this
this
the project
is
project.
Please do not
completed, for
this time.
it
could
34
The
The
school,
high
after
was
first
plans
science courses,
and a
previously-taken
was used
Refer
Instead.
to
the
After
completion
the
of
them
in
in
all
students
the
survey,
participant
to
proper order.
completion
After
of
the
order
apple
the
of
sequence and
instructed
them
take
to
out
the
their
moon
into
one sequence.
At
this
processes
in
make
researcher would
reading a book.
himself
as
trials
was seated
experimental
directly
rur).
experimental runs.
the
experimental
inconspicuous
were run
In
run,
the
as possible by
was
much space.
approximately
The researcher
Refer
to
Figure
3-1
for
room
set-up
for
35
Experimental
Figure 3-1
Room Arrangement
researcher
correctness
of
answer.
the question
If
question.
researcher would
initially
the
If
reply.
misunderstood
had
One
potential
that
they
to
was
of
to
do
with
students,
combine
their
the
not
pairs
two
needed
students
to
to
Of the 26 groups
later
had
question
the
His
name was
districrs
One group
that participated
included
computer
listing
in
for
was
Physics
showed
36
The 26
pairs
a member
of
pair
that
This
potential
this
time
Sufficient
was allowed
group
to
complete a
An average
of
to
used.
experimental
of
each
was
for
the
trial
or run.
form
itself
took place.
score
the placement
lunar
each
trial
explanation,
assigning
points
for
The coding
coding of data
was developed
each
part
of
to
the
explanation.
model used
scoring
of
the
to
explanation
of
the
lunar
ways.
First,
did the
students
for
37
two complete phase changes; however, the direction did not specify
that two
phases were
Waxing
and
differentiated
to
waning
are
determined
of
If
It
appears that
A waxing
illuminated.
second
the
point
between.
moon
was
phases
of
each other.
the
moon are
the
So
Illuminated.
in
to
be
natural
its
However
In
terms
crescent
different
It
was
waxing
and
coding,
of
waning phases.
With the two points being examined, four proposed sequences
were possible.
If
sequence was
the
correctly
moon's waxing and waning phases and went through two lunar phases
or
If
correct.
the sequence reversed the waxing and waning phases through one
was coded as
incorrect.
The type
2.
a combination
of
of four
ways:
model:
3.
4.
the lunar
phases of the
moon
with
time
are
seen
to
from
phases scoring
explain
an
why the
earth-based
36
reference point.
Elements Included
depending
weight,
on
points
of
Upon completion
Two
of
Individuals
given
element
that
was given
six
the
to
the
moon
video
tapes
of
points.
the
forms,
reduction
of
data for
scoring were
whereas knowledge
each,
the
In
importance
the
explanation.
reliability.
Data from
participant
The
examine data.
to
first
If
Course experience
determined by summing
earth or physical
was coded as
such.
Course
Individual
total
pair.
was
course and
liked
preference
mean
for
each
five
the
pair
least
liked
course.
subject
This spreadsheet
Each
explain the
if
indicator
was coded
used, with
Materials
accordingly.
either a zero
If
of one.
for
each
used
to
39
The
coded
data
from
(he
spreadsheets
for
the
student
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
The overview
will
be presented
the student
The
five
In
participant
student
and Overview
of
sections.
and implications
be an examination
First will
of
survey
participant
data
provide
will
the
basic
demographics.
The
second
and
third
pairs'
proposal
the
made as
The
moon
of the
include
an
third
section
(e.g.,
This
correctness
The student
pair
proposals
Include
will
will
three-dimensional,
Includes
section
of
an
of
two-dimensional,
evaluation
and
explanation
their
Use
explanations.
terminology
an
by each
of
the
degree
of
will
be
to
the
relation
In
be
any
employment
40
of
the
material
aids
of
incorrect
student pair
Its
their
by the
etc.)
analysis
noted
and
overview
dimensions
pairs.
In
be discussed.
will
phase
sections
which
the
Also
will
phase sequence
moon
of the
with time.
several
in
After discussing
four possibilities.
into
their
their
One way a
A second
choose
also
option
was
sequence occurs.
that
circular disks
flat,
resource
This
box.
type
pair could
tfrat
explanation
of
a pair could
The
to
use
sequence was
Is
of
the
a two-dimensional
pair
be
particular
of
explanation's
interest
its
represents a multidimensional
dynamics
the
explanation
to
the
of
the
materials
three-dimensional,
of
flat
Such a combination
styrofoam spheres.
or
This process
relationship
flashlight
mirror
for
quality.
Finally,
above.
to
time-related
phenomenon.
The
fourth
section
type
of
model
of
why
the
used
by
the
the model.
explanation as to
dimensions
will
phases
of the
pair,
moon occur
specifically
of the
the
dimension or
to
explain
pair's
is
the
a proposed sequence;
42
would students be more
likely
to
if
In
links
will
rating
score on
or
their
phase
lunar
pair
member
science
point of
or both pair
background,
explanation
in
Participant Survey
Upon being
For example,
the explanation.
members had a
would they be
likely
earth
entered prior
to
reference
Data
was asked
play the
to
The
first
set
to
form.
propose an
to
from an
if
more
three-dimensions as seen
in
why
participant
in
survey was
the room.
This step
Three
sought.
categories
of
Background
information,
prior
personal
background
information
included
information
general
were
participant
and a subject-area
preference ranking.
Genera]
Participant
currently taking,
Twenty-six
male,
and plans
eleventh
participated
in
IntormaMon
school,
like
to
after high
grade
school.
sex
the experiment-
pairs,
13
female and
for
13
both
43
female and male participants was 16.6 years.
all
participants
All
was from
participants
The range
of
ages
for
I,
Standard.
In
addition,
As represented
plans
after
technical
high
school,
specific plans),
in
school.
Included
military,
other
in
plans
The
to
(with
a space
to
25-
Schooling
I Females
Figure 4-1
give their
the
indicate
^9H
fletss
44
Student
participants
also
indicated
previously-taken
science
courses from the middle school or junior high school level to the
was
males
than
Indicated
taking
42% more
had
or
Biology
the
Marine
Biology
to Life Science,
taken.
All
More
Honors.
Honors.
In
usually a seventh
taken
exposure.
Biology,
with
no
Physiology.
females
Six males
indicating
course
45
ChemisttY
results
more femaies
siightiy
taking Chemistry
Honors.
grade
ninth
with
I,
offering,
concepts.
Two females
astronomy,
sample
the
in
indicated
that
had taken
they
Seven
females and 9 males had taken Earth Science, usuaiiy an eighth grade
course.
Oceanography.
Nine
taken
females
Sciences
Earth
courses
In
music,
language
from one
least-liked.
these
to
One
to five.
The
five
subject and
science,
reduction
In
five
mathematics,
arts,
representing
shows a representation
of
to
the
subject.
least-liked
Figure 4-3
means
for
The
student
The most-liked
preferences.
female
participants
indicated
subject
their
of
participants,
responses
was
most-liked
female
the
indicated
subject,
arts
subject
participants
mathematics.
extremes
irt
subject
and/or
was
was
music,
science.
science
whereas
males
The
least
liked
and
for
male
46
The response
of
female participants
was
to
science
taking Physics
experience, the
I,
was
interesting,
Standard.
In
light
Figure 4-3
participant
that
survey,
of the
they
again
experiment had
47
The
eatan.
purpose
of
the
student
sequence
naturally-occurring
to
on
was
see
gave the
Data from
step
this
At the completion of
this step,
proposed
phase
their
it
not considered
therefore
and
out
Finally,
was
allowed
additionally
lay
development.
in
student
ascertain
to
The exercise
opportunity
an
pairs
was
step
this
lunar
began
to
work
sequence.
combining the eight cards from each of the two envelopes and laying
out the cards
pair to think
to
full
back
line.
moon and
to
this
(in
case, one
number
of
was
on the reference
pair
the
set
noted.
once
their
sequence;
first,
the
proposed sequence
their
finally,
moon
that the
the correctness of
sequence proposal.
Changes Made
made by
or
line;
pair
in
more changes.
in
sequence was
in
pairs
were coded
Changes made
in
initial
was
Figure 4-4.
to
be less
likely to
sixteen-card set
3 pairs
Two
their
pairs of males
No female groups
left
the original
change
In
lunar
compared
to
the
The number
sequence
layout
of
proposal,
made was
changes
not
significant
in
the
layout
the
of
The number
proposal,
of
the
10
Changes
Females
Figure 4-4
Changes Made
Becinnino
Phase
in
the
Males
Explanation of the
moon phases
relies In part
At what point
relates to the
In
the
sequence
49
finally
selected
is
explanations related
of
to
interest.
In
where one
moon
(either
the
student pairs
different
cards),
phases as
as
and
was
starting
student pairs
their starting
rates
full
different representative
error
noted.
are
short,
point
selected
(since
only
there
one
of
were eight
these three
point.
Figure 4-5
The
majority of
pairs
began
their
50
69%
pairs,
77%
females and
full
full
The
males.
moon.
Two
pairs,
15%,
moon, and 2
is
began
their
sequence with the new moon and concluded with a crescent moon.
Most astronomy texts consider the new moon as the
when
sunset,
the
first
phase seen
In the
starting
point
evening skies
new moon
the
after
is
the
after
waxing
crescent moon.
sequence.
final
final
was designed
Upon
Once
of the lunar
the
number
to
examination
of
phases sequence
The
videotape.
the
It
was
The
first
possibility
is
that a
Into
laid
in
in
the coding.
except pairing
laid
up the cards.
Matching
laid
in
the correct
phase cards
out
in
order.
was given
To be
(for
phase development;
that
First
Is,
the
51
sequence
order,
in
that
phases
waning
is
If
waxing
before
incorrect: reversed
phases,
then
the
phases.
The
category
final
sequence paired
In
These
for
those
pairs
that
reverse.
was
the
out
laid
incorrect: paired
distribution
crescent waning).
As seen
correctly
30.8%
in
Figure 4-6,
up
set
correctly set
2 male
two complete
a sequence
pairs proposed
phases,
lunar
and
that
mala pairs
No female
These females
out of
total of 1
pair's
phase
moon.
(full
to
third
quarter
to
quarter
to
waxing crescent)
to
order.
first
In
to
is
full
back
just the
moon)
to
the
nature the
quarter to
error in the
to
full)
the
to
new
opposite: waning
to
waxing
(full
new moon.
to
To
52
Figure 4-6
Final Lunar
see
would
be
especially
moon and
Four female
laid
to
pairs,
if
the
was
to
also of
examine
possible
represent the
It
pair
was thought
used
the
that this
spheres
to
representing
pairs, or
It
30.8%
in
reverse order.
Three male
53
Eight female pairs and 6
explain
why
Nine of 13
An
sequence.
Incorrect
incorrect
affect
the
12 of 13 female groups,
total of
or 92.3%,
of
for
to
time.
an
of
describe and
explain
pair
to
explain
the
itself,
proposed
the
sequence,
and correct
or
use of terms.
Incorrect
Use
Materials
of
in
Explanation
the
After being
given the
resource materials box, each student pair had the option to use the
materials or not to help develop an explanation.
provided a
means
for alternate
moon.
moon
relative to the
that each
position
that could be
used
ways
to
These materials
of representing
diagram aspects
ideas.
Pairs
of their explanations.
show
represented.
to represent
to
could be used
be used
any
of the bodies.
to represent the
flashlight
was
sun as a source
of
54
were
Students
resource box or
told
explain their
not
sequence by
other materials
In
to
any
in
an
for
moon; the
would
the
in
were
to
two
the
moon sphere
light
been
have
By positioning the
light.
materials
explanation
of
use the
first
materials
Ideal
instructed
use them
to
the
that
around the earth sphere, students would easily see the phases that
the
reference.
obvious
to
exhibiting
a pair at
Including
this point,
reversal
the proposed
in
sequence provided:
the
1.
2.
three-dimensional
In
materials.
representation.
For Instance,
if
in
materials
flat disk,
flashlight,
lor
the
explanation.
all
Yet
four
if
no
was coded.
pattern with
test
not equal
the
13
pairs
is
of
shown
in
pair,
explain
Figure 4-7.
Only
to
to
students'
These
the
figures
multiple
or
55
a pen and pencil
produce a diagram
to
Is
This
reproduced
in
the Appendix.
The
the
styrofoam spheres
females.
pairs, or
the
was more
Materials
Used
flashlight.
prevalent
pairs, or
in
among
the
combination
The use
of
the
some
to
irt
combination.
The use
of
develop a three-dimensional
56
The
flashlight,
a three-dimensional
representation
of the
was used by
each
Of the
sex.
who modeled
pairs
sun,
61.5%
explanation
their
of
In
One female
Choosing
were 4
pair
to
of the
groups, or 15.4%.
Dimensions
of
used by each
pair.
characteristics
of
their
Each
It
Explanation
Pair's
to
a pair's explanation.
dimensions and
Possible
Table 4-1.
in
Table 4-1
Possible Dimensions and Implications of Pair Explanation
Dimensionfsl
Implications
Three-dimensional
Pair
in their
Two- and
Pair
Three-dimensional
disks
in
their explanation;
Two-dimensional
Pair
used
sun
disks or a drawing
flat
flat
in their
No
Verbal
materials
were used
In
proposing an
explanation
Each
listed in
pair
Table 4-1.
in
Figure 4-8.
Three
of
choose
to
explain verbally
why
lunar
57
female
pairs,
explained
In
pairs,
or 23.1%,
three-dimensions
or 30.8%,
and 3
of the 13
of
female
the
pairs,
or 15.4%,
and 2
of the 13
Figure 4-8
male
or 30.8%,
Two
the moon.
used a combination
the explanation.
in
and 5
of the
And 4
of
two-dimensions and
of the
13 female pairs,
step.
Coding
things.
First,
in
it
would indicate the degree to which the pairs actually understood the
lunar
When
developing the
58
the
explanation,
would
explanation
the
provide
an
with
pair
at
review
initial
the
of
videotapes,
mechanics
could develop
Pairs
shadow
of
shadows
of the earth or in
be
describe
to
of
the
These included:
identified.
for the
possible
four
established
a correct explanation
of
the
t)
(either
the
other
which
reasons,
includes
several
one-of-the-kind
Further
development
of
a scoring procedure.
score to be assigned
reflect
the
explanation
quality
to
each
of
the
Table 4-2
the script.
pair's
lists
of the
moon
script
look
for
visibility
the
of the
why
Individual
Items
lunar
necessary
its
moon
to
over
time
the
a raw
correct
review each
correctly
revolution
of
in
explain
Table 4-2.
sun,
for
for
explanation to
need
indicated
phases
explanation.
the
The
moon, and
lunar
visibility,
59
Table 4-2
Explanation of Lunar Phases Scorinp Procedure
Score Value
Item Descriptor
2 points
2 points
Representation of the
Moon
2 points
points
iight
2
Demonstrates Lunar Revolution around the Earth over time 6
2
Phase observed dependent on earth-sun-moon positions
6
Demonstrates Lunar visibility from earth-reference
4
Demonstrates changes in amount of the moon visible
6
points
Maximum
The
given
in
mean
related to
of
how
the
point-of-reference.
this
necessary
To
These
Table 4-3.
phases
score;
each
results of rating
to
male
pair
Only
rating
pair
appear
1
results
as
pair of the
failed
to
points
points
points
show
that the
raw score
moon
points
32 points
Ravr Score:
viewed
from
why
an
the
earth
identify
any of the
descriptors
assure
intercoder
taped interviews.
reliability,
two
individuals
viewed
the
One
of the individuals
is
Table 4-4.
high percent of
60
Table 4-3
Results of Pair Explanations
Model
Females
Males
Range
14-32
28-4
24-32
18
12-32
16-7
14-20
2-d
12
8-16
15-3
4-30
Verbal
10
6-12
0-12
i
3-d
22
2/3-d
Range
All
Range
14-32
80%
17-2
12-32
13-4
4-30
8.4
0-12
53.8%
41.9%
26.3%
25-6
17
1
Pairs
Iff
*ff
Si
Table 4-4
Intercoder Reliability of Dimension Rating
Pair
Researcher
12
10
12
32
32
32
Dimension
Rnnre
Observer #1
Dimension Score
Observer #2
Dimension
Score
12
12
10
22
22
20
Researcher-Observer
number
of
incorrect
96.86%
statements
was
96.88%
made
by
pairs
in
Several pairs
to
shadows or
61
Statements made by pairs included the following:
eclipses.
'Phases occur because of the earth and sun; you can see
shadows (of Uie earth) on the moon;*
that
'Isn't
the
the earth and the sun line up, the earth blocks
when
to
it
(the
moon)
and
up;'
Die
brighter
Other
of
shadows:
'When
light
gets
it
made
and statements
explanations
Incorrect
by
pairs
and
the
earth's
revolution
around
the
These
sun.
incorrect
in
one
moon
moving and
that
causes
stays
left
to
right,
showing
and
'The earth affects the sun and how it (the sun) rotates.
don't
know a whole lot about this, hate this. I've never been good at
the solar system ever.'
I
Use
phrases
of Astronomical
in
Terms
The use
of
of
the
of astronomical
proposed
previous
phase
sequence-
identification.
These included
to
terms and
sequence was
course experience.
the explanation of
rotation,
revolution,
and
62
Rotation
the spinning of
Is
a body on
year,
moon around
is
on earth
axis, producing
its
Revolution
is
earth.
the part of the physical explanation for the phases of the moon.
Prior
necessary
for
terminology
from
sections.
was
moon
was
First,
revolution,
in
the
Illumination,
were used
common
This
were examined
Other
to
terms,
such
as
use
to
and
rotation
of the
and
eclipses
was
in
pairs:
phase
the particular
pair.
revolution
meant
the concept
is
so,
If
in
error
two
in
and references
sequence.
Interchangeably.
tell
category
4-9.
rotation,
not
is
moon.
the
of
usage correct?
the
Figure
daily
in
terminology
the
phases
the
with
familiarity
commonly found
is
materials,
to
mirror motion
when used.
not.
is
or the
Rotation
One
way
can
the pair
was used
the
in
When
pairs
and 75%
rotation
of
the
the earth).
Two
pairs,
was
incorrectiy
male
pairs.
for revolution
used by 57.1%
All
pairs
(e.g.,
the
who
of the
female
incorrectly
moon
used
rotates around
rotation
and
revolution
astronomical
It
is
for
term
the
revolution.
Rotation
Is
vrith;
most apparent
Is
day and
rotation
However,
used by a number of
one
the
resulting in
to
night).
pairs.
10
Number
of
Pairs
Figure 4-9
Use
Revolution
pairs, or
30.8%.
of Astronomical
was used by
When
Lid
Terms
identification
all
was
and 4 male
pairs
who used
in
64
used,
eclipse
i.e.,
and
Four of 13 female
illumination.
or
pairs,
Conoeratian.
Pair
The
The possible
cooperation.
last
of
relation
in
pair
a cooperation indicator to
Each
pair
as shown
in
on
In
of cooperation
presentation
final
appears
Table 4-5.
as the sequence
Summary
the explanation.
of
the results
of
Figure 4-10.
Table 4-5
Qualitative
Observabon
Code
of
Teamwork
Explanation
Excellent
Equal sharing of
Good
Fair
Poor
Little
In all
or
All
cooperation
pairs,
of
attempted
fair
pairs
and
female
pair,
explain
for
male
which
was coded as
2 male
was coded as
sequence and an
pairs
all
no cooperation
the
sequence
verbally
Two
(no
of the
use
3
of
65
materials from the resource box).
use three-dimensiortal
lunar phases sequence.
phases
of the
moon
The
pair,
third
a male
did
pair,
member
member
explained the
listened.
who
of this
likely
to
form
all,
of
a two-dimensional
exclusively on
words,
was
model or no model
first
examined.
at
Statistical
i.e.,
rely
examination
66
employed a one-way analysis
computer
was
[Hq]
there
variance
of
ANOVA,
or
The
SAS.
package
statistical
hypothesis
the
using
or
statistical
be no difference
will
null
the explanation
in
The Independent
explanation
models
that
and
three-dimensional
verbal explanation
presented
in
this
Possible
The dependent
choice of
reference
presented
In
how
Data from
point.
statistical
determine
if
there
was a
Graphing
fashion.
relationship
of
was a
of
Each
scoring
in
this
statistical
relaticnshlp
variable
examination are
To ascertain the
was
or
earth
the type of
two-dimensional,
pair's
was
Pair's
hypothesis
explanation
the
data
of
the
explanation
was generated.
relationship
that
to
The reason
the
of
a linear
correct
used.
Examination of the
a level of p <
score
is
.05.
related
explanation
when
to
statistical
analysis
shows a
significance
at
type
of
model
attempting to explain
that
how
is
employed
for
the phases of ie
the
moon
67
can be accepted and the
There
rejected.
explanation of
null
hypothesis [Hg)
Is
how
In
the explanation.
Table 4-6
25.56
6.15
17.20
2.26
Two-dimensional modeling
13.43
8.30
17.38
8.87
Verbal
All
Groups
Table 4-7
Statistical
Sum of Squares
Degrees of Freedom
1114.22
371.41
851.94
22
38.72
1966.16
25
9.59*
model dimension
follow-up
versus
was done.
the
A Tukey
score,
studentized
post-hoc
in
the
statistical
the
68
modeled
In
combination
of
showed a
significant difference
who
explanation.
presented
In
modeled
who modeled
in
Analysis of this
verbal explanation.
those
who
of
statistic
phases
in
Data from
moon
of the
two-dimenslons
this
follow-up
statistical
post-hoc
in
or
three-dimensions and
provided
statistical
verbal
examination
are
Table 4-8.
Table 4-8
Differences Between Pairs that Modeled
In
Three-Dimensions and
Model Comoarison:
Ibfee.-Dimension
Model Prooosals and:
Two- and Threedimensional modeling
Two-dimensional
Lower
Difference
Confidence
Limit
-1.283
Between
Means
3.419
12.127
20.835'
7.517
17.156
26.794
modeling
Verbal
Inner
Confidence
imit
17.994
8.356
Analysis of Tvoe of
Three
hypotheses
M odel
additional
were
hypotheses
developed
were
around
the
Investigated.
These
independent
variables
three-dimensions.
tendency
to
model
in
69
Physical and Earth Science ExposuCfl
was hypothesized
It
have had
sciences
physical
modeling
variable
In
was
each
Individual
used
pair
analyze this
will
more
in
likely
variable
hypothesis.
earth sciences
three-dimensional
The dependent
was
in
exhibit
their explanation.
physical sciences.
course experience
significant
for
both
to
earth
in
to
this
Table 4-9
Earth and Physical Science Courses
Chemistry
1;
high school
I,
Chemistry
AP
Physics
I;
high school
Key
Level: High Sdiool:
AP -
grades 9-12:
Advanced Placement
The
and
statistical
its
presented
relationship
in
to
Table 4-10.
prior
earth
science
course
Examination of the
exposure
statistical
is
analysis
70
shows no
employed
Since
the
of
therefore
Is
to
[Hq],
any
p <
of
level
not
related
.05.
as
stated
moon
modeling
model
of
scheme
that
Is
then
accepted,
not
science experience
that earth
particular
Is
the type
to
hypothesis
hypothesis
use
significance at
experience
will
the
can
dimension,
or
null
be
accepted.
how would
taking of astronomy
the
exposures
science
earth
which
In
employed?
students
Of
Indicated
in
Earth Sciences (7
females, 9 males).
Table 4-10
Statistical
Earth Sci
Error
Total
4.17
29.36
Degrees
of
Freedom
4,17
21
25
33.53
-22
Analysis
of
the
hypothesis
exposure.
Statistical
same
for
results
analysis
for
physical
as
Table 4-11.
It
sciences
course
sciences course
for earth
physical
science
Is
course
represented
in
71
was
that
physical
particular
science experience
The
not
will
hypothesis [Hq],
null
affect
use of any
the
appearance
this
might
conclusion
be
time as a variable).
puzzling,
(I.e.,
At
first
considering
the
curvilinear
motion and
Therefore,
all
which
I,
for
a physical
Is
students Involved
In
the
Table 4-11
Statistical
Exposure
PhysSci
1.72
Deorees
of
Freedom
Total
1.72
31.62
Error
33
25
18.68
The
either
hypothesis
third
member
mathematics
exhibit
subjects
of
Model
would
preference
outperform
those
for
In
science
for
which
which
and
the
The
preference ranking
five subjects.
(averaged
for
72
used
pair
for
4-12
Table
choice.
explanation.
its
preference
in
not
affect
the
statistical
null
use
was
there
Is
first
the
is
particular
Generally,
modeling
no
relation
that the
large
not
much
difference
sample size
enough
to
scheme
make
for
for
or
was found
As the data
been
The
page
45).
^Is study
much
The second
(n
in
the
subject
Table 4-12
Correlations between Model Dimension and Pair
Mean Course
Preferences
Omun
Correlation Coefficient
and Music
Language Arts
26
Mathematics
26
-0.019*
Science
26
26
-0.178*
Arts
Social Studies
*No correlation
26
for
relates to
difference
preference means.
Courses- Total
of
the
any
any
and
no correlations
of
be accepted.
statistic
data
analysis,
statistical
of the
the explanation.
dimension, can
the
subject.
will
correlation
of
overviews
0.175*
0.077*
-0.109*
73
Sex versus Model Dimension
The
would
difference
be
hypothesis
final
model
In
explainable
In
terms of difference
In
The
pairs.
In
largely
this
in
three-dimensions
Although
science,
all
In
the students
net
In
number
I.e.,
of
will
be
test
was employed
to
variable
moon over
hypothesis.
the
more
likely
was
Additional
A one-way
analysis
Is.
was
ANOVA was
using
two-way
used
to
ANOVAs
time.
level;
to
criterion explanation.
this
The dependent
pair.
there
showed no
was no
in
significant
relationship
results at the
between the
In
pair's
< .05
sex and
Table 4-13.
Table 4-13
Statistical
SOUIOe
Sex
Error
Total
0.62
Decrees of Freedom
1
32.92
24
33.54
25
.37
0.45
74
Analysis
Additional
Though
between the
lunar
pair's initial
dimension used
to
in
examined possible
links
the
explain
Results, as presented
lunar
.05 level.
Table 4-14
Statistical
Degrees
Source
Error
Total
of
Freedom
2.07
2.07
31.46
22
1-31
33.53
25
Layout
1.59*
Review
In
of
system.
the Results
short,
mechanics
of the
phases
of the
Course exposure
in
were equally
likely
to
moon over
time
in
polar coordinate
model
model employed.
in
three-dimensions.
And student
model
in
three-dimensional
findings
and
three-dimensions
over time
in
system
that
is
nature
in
These
be discussed
in
Chapter
5.
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CC^gCLUSIONS
Ovary law
Four hypotheses were the focus of
Students
1.
more
likely
p<
or
study:
was found
This
to
model
no
be
at
all,
significant at
i.e
are
rely
level of
.05.
2.
Pairs
in
course experience
will
this
to
more
likely
sciences
was
student
pairs
sequence
3.
at
the
earth
exhibit
three-dimensional
the earth
in
modeling
for
for
their
explanation
level of significance of
in
which
science
three-dimensional
or
modeling
either
of
the
p <
.05.
member
math subjects
in
their
their
in
sciences or physical
Pairs
preference
in
Course experience
explanation.
employed by the
phases
exhibits
will
more
explanation
moon
the
of
stronger
likely
rather
exhibit
than
the
or
75
76
preference rating favors the English, social studies, arts or music.
was determined
This
Male pairs
4.
than female
pairs
courses taken.
be more
will
due
will,
was
This
Many systems
to
likely
model
to
the overall
with time.
in
of
science
in
of
nature
in
was
research
this
in
three-dimensions
number
net
in
the
nature with
solar system
bodies around the sun, planetary ring and satellite systems, binary
and multiple
stars,
and
galactic rotation.
Additionally,
these are
all
systems that are defined with polar coordinates, rather than the
Cartesian coordinates
The treatment
textbooks,
Though
due
the
to
earth-moon-sun
the
nature
available,
the
it
transition
left
is
from
to
system
textbooks,
of
becoming
make
in
of
ancillaries
three-dimensions
to
in
are
instructor
two-dimensions
time
two-dimensional.
is
textbook
in
the
over
to
in
such systems.
If
the transition
from
two- to
three-dimensions
is
student
teams
three-dimensions
who
answer
modeled
were
is
the
significantly
made,
Based on
The scores
positive.
phases
higher
of
the
than
of
moon
any
will
the
those
in
other
dimensional combination.
How do
students
three-dimensions?
learn
One
to
make
possibility
is
the
prior
transition
from two-
experiences
in
to
making
77
such
Another
a transition.
student experiences,
However,
was
this
hypothesized
course
that
the
is
of
be true
to
experience
physical
type
this
in
the
In
modeling
In
the
of
moon,
which
circular
some
orbits.
in
or
the
nature.
possibly-relevent concepts,
this
In
was
including
study,
everyone
the
In
least
Two concerns
results
and
physics
at
was
It
sciences
three-dimensions.
three-dimensional
are
sample had
study.
earth
In
topics,
I,
Standard.
this
It
Is
different
course
for
preference
means
One
the pairs.
in
in
this
with
sculpturing,
dimension
to
might
more
be
typical
another
likely
often
in
two-dimensional
art.
deal
their work.
to
and
Artists,
with
It
is
diagrams
future
study are
especially those
who
from
one
transition
make a successful
text
The
work
study
to
transition
from
the
three-dimensional
system.
As a
in
favor of male
participants
was
the key.
Examination of female
78
male science course
versus
showed a
S tudy
Imolicalions ol this
Based on the
sensitive
to
of
dimensionality
ability
study,
this
study
this
projected
of
an
sample
studys
instructor
should be
issues.
must be taken
for
the Classroom
lor
results
orientation
spatial
experience
fairly
consideration
into
that
when
three-dimensional
relationships
college
who
and physics as
This
well.
is
due
when
tested
each
In
pair's
of
to
astronomy and
biology,
chemistry,
as a
who
nature.
presentation,
sequence layout
styrofoam
phenomena.
two-dimensional
system was
like
textbooks.
in
the
the
that
spheres,
Teachers
with
in
in
found
to the
teach
factor.
or
without
the
those
the use
flashlight
to
whenever
In
possible.
astronomy,
students
astronomical systems.
should
rely
heavily
on
research
modeling
and
that
of
79
others
the
translation
and
the
drawings
their
to
three-dimensional
on
board
the
representations.
employed
for students to
Bishop
models
significantly
on
model
reported
the
to
good
their
that the
of
relative
position
was
teaching
in
the
solar
significantly
better
in
the
is
Reed (1970)
of the
representation
in
who
topics.
planetarium
globe,
three-dimensional
into
performed
astronomy
to
texts
systems.
students
that
planetarium
three-dimensional
in
projector
should be available,
to
(1980)
addition
in
better
Teachers
many chances
illustrations
overhead
Materials
or
Way
teaching
celestial
the
earths
Galaxy,
of
in
celestial
mechanics.
the
It
illustrations
include
In
their
out
of
notes
textbooks.
to
Publishers
teachers
suggestions
oould,
on
of the
text
itself.
system
viewed
three-dimensional.
on
is
the
realistic
in
computer
its
in
in
the
in
initiative
modeling
monitor
all
however,
modeling
body
to this
to
that
appears
15 May 1989
Dear Parents.
students perception.
work
Alexander
Brest
Tapes
(396-7062).
will
be stored at
my
residence
will
in
Thank you
for
participate
in
your consideration
this
activity.
Sincerely yours.
Mike 0. Reynolds
Doctoral Candidate
University of Florida
in
INFORMED CONSBJr
Science Events and
their Rationale
Study
Student's
Name
School
Science Instructor
We
in
letter
to
the Parents.
We
agree
to
We
will
Student's Signature
Parent's Signature
Date
Parent's Signature
Date
and procedure.
APPENDIX 8
STUOENfT SURVEY FORM
Student Code Number
Age
3.
(to
Grade
be entered by Researcher)
in
School: 9 10 11
12
6.
Work
Other;
4.
College
2.
Technical schooling
Military
5.
1.
2.
Astronomy;
3.
Bioiogy
I;
4.
Bioiogy
I,
5.
6.
7.
[
[
i
8.
9-
Chemistry
i;
Chemistry
I,
A. P. Chemistry;
Honors;
Life
Physicai Science;
12.
Physics
i;
Physics
I,
i
[
15.
16.
and
[
[
14.
off
up):
A. P. Bioiogy;
10.
11-
13.
and
Honors;
Undecided
iist:
Science:
Honors:
A. P. Physics B/C;
Other, Course:
Other, Course:
Of the
most
A.
Art and/or
Music
B.
Language
Arts
C.
Mathematics
Science
Sociai Studies
82
iist
that
b^an
Full
Sequence:
Moon
Crescent Phase
Rnal Sequence:
[
'
(either
waxing or waning)
'
Styrofoam
Ball(s)
Flashlight
No explanaton given
id
revolution
phase(s) ident'fication
other;
ice and explanation:
83
Eart^ Representation
Moon Representation
Sun as Vie source
of light
on the
RAWSCORE;
Dimension of explanation:
Flashlight
used? Yes
Comments
No
earth)
PERCENT SCORE:
/32
3/2
Explanation only
APPENDIX 0
SAMPLE STUDENT DRAWINGS
Pair:
101-119
Ssx: Female
Notes:
Started with a two-dimensional drawing: explained sequence
with three-dimensional representation (raw score of 32; 100%).
Pair:
004-020
Sex: Male
Notes:
drawing
reflection
87
Pair:
016-022
Sex: Male
Notes:
visible.
liiiilsiiiiid
a
I s ~ a s
*'
s a
s =
"
|l,
"jlllliifiiliili
iiiiiiiiiiiii!
HfiHifiiifii
88
Percent
Raw;
Model
Layout^
Preference^
3
3 s s s
Course
B--p2
REFEFIBCES
Bishop,
E.
J,
present,
(1977).
and
future.
Past,
Bishop,
J. E. (1980a).
Astronomy education in the United States: Out
from under a black cloud- Griffith Observer 41 3V 2-10.
.
Bishop,
E. (1980b).
J.
planetarium
unit
emphasizing
testing of
projective
a participatory
astronomy concepts
Abstracts
Clement,
Darch,
Students
(1982).
J.
C-,
&
1010A.
Eaves,
R,
comprehension
of
Dobson, H. D. (1983).
preconceptions
(1986).
high
school
Visual
in
displays
introductory
to
learning-disabled
increase
students.
An experimental study
of the effectiveness of
teaching selected science concepts in the
middle school. (Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State
University). Pissertation Abstracts Internationfll ii
1315A.
the
planetarium
In
Fletcher,
J.
K.
(1977).
An experimental comparison of the
effectiveness of a traditional type planetarium program and a
participatory
Giles,
type
dissertation.
University
International
39
planetarium
of
Virginia).
program.
Dissertation
(Doctoral
Abstracts
796A-797A.
W. (1981).
A comparison of effectiveness of advance
and clustering singly and in combination upon
in
the
planetarium.
(Doctoral
dissertation,
Pennsylvania Slate University). Dissertation
Abstrartrs
T.
organizers
learning
International
42 70A.
..
91
92
Halloun,
& Hestenes,
A.,
I.
D. (1985).
American Journal
motion.
Hashweh, M. (1988).
science.
Common sense
concepts about
1056-1085.
Physics sa,
of
Journal
Research
of
in
In
121-134.
Hill,
L.
C.
(1989).
University
International
Kelsey,
L.
3543A.
G.
J.
Spatial thinking
(1980).
The performance
of
college
astronomy
Klopfer,
(1969).
L.
materials:
An
development
(1),
study of evaluation
ESSP astronomy
In
a curriculum
project.
64-75.
Lightman, A.,
Sadler, P. (1988).
The earth
Is
round?
Who
are you
kidding?
Lord, T. H. (1985).
Journal of Research
Mallon, G.,
&
Bruce, M. (1982).
astronomy; An
),
53-61.
PoOmore,
F.,
&
Fleet, R. (1985).
Reaves, G. (1984-1985).
222-223.'*'''*'^"^'
Make a
Halley's
comet
orbit
model.
Reed,
of the planetarium
globe
Reed,
J. C. (1970).
A comparison of the effectiveness of the
planetarium and the classroom chalkboard and celestial globe
in the teaching of specific astronomical concepts,
(Doctoral
dissertation.
University
i,
Pennsylvania).
of
Diesertatinn
ai, 4580A.
Roberts,
D. (1970).
Education under the stars.
Journal 40f8V 21.
Junior
ftniiarja
Dissertation
Hosenquist. M. L,
to
Abstracts. 28
S McDermott,
teaching kinematics.
4959A-4960A.
L. C. (1987).
Americar!
.Inumal
conceptual approach
of Phvgfng 5(5)
407-415.
Russo,
R.
Sun
(1983).
[.
Sadler, P. (1987).
Sarton,
E.
Teacher.
Shrigley,
R.
science.
The
(1980).
J,
18(7),
(1971),
tracking:
The
50(5), 72-74.
.STARnawc
orbit.
The
i,
Phvsics
504-509.
Handmade equipment
Science Edunetinn
irtrar
in
361-369.
elementary school
94
Smith, B. A. (1967).
(planetarium
lecture-demonstration)
concepts
teaching
grade
sixth
to
of
selected
astronomical
(Doctoral dissertation,
Abstrantg 2, 887A.
students.
Dissertation
C..
& Pulos, S. (1983). Children's cosmographies:
Understanding the earth's shape and gravity. Seienne Educatinn
fil(2), 205-221.
Sneider,
Sonntag, M. S. (1981).
spatial
of
An experimental study
orientation
of teaching
and achievement
ability,
astronomy.
positional
(Doctoral
in
method,
selected topics
dissertation.
University
of
International, 42.
4783A.
Strope,
M.
E.
A comparison
(1966).
teaching
introductory
in
dissertation,
Utah
and conceptual
astronomy. (Doctoral
of
factual
college
University).
Dissertation
assimilation
and accommodation
State
Ahstrants
Targan,
D. M.
concepts
Twiest,
M.
G.
astronomy.
integration
concepts
fourth,
to
International
C.
Wright.
A.
D.
(Doctoral
C.
of
of
University
of
of
teaching
selected
astronomical
Georgia).
Ahstraots
473A.
review of
(1969).
methods
of
dissertation.
Dissertation
dissertation.
altitudinal
in
fifth,
University
(1973).
L.
different
(Doctoral
The
(1989).
dissertation.
Wall,
The
(1988).
in
planetarium
Abstracts
research
Effectiveness
its
of
utilization
University
in
of
International 21.
related
astronomy
to
the
planetarium and
teaching astronomy.
Nebraska
4580A.
Lincoln).
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Michael
was
Reynolds
David
Jacksonville,
March
born
1954,
30,
Florida.
schools at Jacksonville
junior
in
high
1972
in
He received
Associate's
his
Florida,
also
New
Trenton,
in
Jacksonville
Jersey,
before being
In
in
He attended
degree
degree
awarded
Edison
in
his
State
College,
Bachelor of Arts
He
1979.
received his
in
the
University
of
In
Florida.
committee
Dr.
served
as
an
Community College
Florida.
at
His
his
chair.
He
Planetarium
at
adjunct
at
the
professor
Jacksonville
currently
is
Museum
the
of
of
astronomy
and the
director
of
He has
at
University
the
11
Florida
of
North
Alexander
Brest
in
Jacksonville,
Florida.
Reynolds work
including
in
selection as the
of the
Year,
1985
in
Space.
He
96
has been honored by several
civic
of
Commerce.
Reynolds has authored and presented many papers on science
education and astronomy.
addition,
In
he coauthored a book
many
for
His
Reynolds
is
involved
in
He
is
currently serving
his
final
the
Florida
Association
Science Teachers
of
astronomical
He
organizations,
is
also
having
and served
member
served
of
as
Convention
Florida
the
in
chairman
July,
of
1983.
He
the
is
National
as
numerous
National
as
served
Astronomical
He
League
Reynolds
children,
Is
Beach, Florida.
They
currently
in
Jacksonville
certify that
have react this study and that in my opinion it
to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree
I
conforms
fully
of Doctor of Philosophy.
certify that
have read this study and that in my opinion it
to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is
adequate, In scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree
I
conforms
fully
of Doctor of Philosophy.
Elroy Bolduc
conforms
fully
to
that
adequate,
In
scope and
quality,
it
is
of Doctor of Philosophy.
Alexander Smith
Distinguished Service
Astronomy
Professor
of
fulfillment
of
the
Philosophy.
December 1990
Dean, College of Education