Learning about Astronomy: a case study
exploring how grade 7 and 8 students
experience sites of informal learning in
South Africa
Anthony Douglas Lelliott
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Humanities, University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg in fulfilment of the requirements of the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Johannesburg 2007
v
Table of Contents
A b s t r a c t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Keywords ....................................................................................................................... i i
Declaration .................................................................................................................... i i i
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... iv
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
List of Appendic e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................ x
List of Tables ............................................................................................................... xi i
Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. xiv
1 Introduction to the study............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Introduc t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Backgrou n d and Rational e for the Study ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Researc h Problem and Researc h Questio n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4 Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................ 6
1.5 The Research e r and Position a l i t y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.6 Structure of the Thesis .......................................................................................... 8
2 Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Introduc t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0
2.2 Research in Science Educatio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0
2.3 Astronomy Educatio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5
2.3. 1 Resea r c h in Plane t a r i a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3
2.4 Informal Le arning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5
2.5 Edutainme n t or Entercat i o n ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8
2.6 Science commun i c a t i o n and science litera c y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1
2.7 Learnin g in museums and science centres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3
2.8 Theoreti c a l Framewor k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7
2.8. 1 The Cont e x t u a l Mode l of Learn i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7
2.8. 2 Hu man Cons t r u c t i v i s m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9
2.8. 3 Conc e p t u a l Chan g e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5
2.9 Summary ............................................................................................................. 47
3 Research Design and Methodology .......................................................................... 49
3.1 Introduction and Overview ................................................................................. 49
3.2 Methodology ....................................................................................................... 50
3.2. 1 Parad i g ms of Resea r c h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 0
3.2. 2 A Case Stud y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1
3.3 Research Instruments .......................................................................................... 54
3.3. 1 Perso n a l Mean i n g Mapp i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5
3.3. 2 Inter v i e w Sche d u l e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9
3.3. 3 The pre-v i s i t inte r v i e w sch e d u l e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9
vi
3.3 . 4 The post - v i s i t inte r v i e w sche d u l e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1
3.3. 5 Inter v i e w s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1
3.4 Data Collection ................................................................................................... 62
3.4. 1 Selec t i o n of the Stud y Site s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2
3.4. 2 Selec t i o n of the Part i c i p a n t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4
3.4. 3 Tria n g u l a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7
3.5 Ethical issues ...................................................................................................... 68
3.6 Issues of credibil i t y and trustwor t h i n e s s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1
3.6. 1 Vali d i t y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1
3.6. 2 Relia b i l i t y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2
3.6. 3 Refl e x i v i t y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2
3.7 Reflection ........................................................................................................... 73
4 Setting the Scene ? a narrative of the visits ............................................................. 74
4.1 Introduc t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4
4.2 A visit to Hartebe e s t h o e k Radio Astrono my Obse rva t o r y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7
4.2. 1 Befor e the visi t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7
4.2. 2 ?Plan e t s and stars and like, well, space ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9
4.2. 3 The Sun, Whisp e r s and Rock e t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2
4.2. 4 Break with Grav i t y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7
4.2. 5 Takin g the Sola r Sy st e m for a Walk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9
4.2. 6 Land i n g on the Moon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1
4.2. 7 The Teles c o p e and Contr o l Room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3
4.2. 8 After the visi t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5
4.3 Discussion ........................................................................................................... 96
4.4 A visit to the Johannesburg Planetarium ............................................................ 99
4.5 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 106
5 An Analysis of Collective Learning ........................................................................ 108
5.1 Introduc t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 8
5.2 The Research Sample ....................................................................................... 108
5.3 Learning in Science Centres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1
5.4 Big Ideas ........................................................................................................... 113
5.4. 1 Grav i t y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3
5.4. 2 Stars and the Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 6
5.4. 3 Sola r Sy st e m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 8
5.4. 4 Size and Scal e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 9
5.5 Signific a n t Ideas ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 0
5.5. 1 Day and Nigh t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 0
5.5. 2 Phase s of the Moon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 2
5.5. 3 Do min a n t Artef a c t : Para b o l i c / S a t e l l i t e Di sh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 2
5.6 Coding for Big Ideas ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3
5.6. 1 Hele n and grav i t y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 6
5.6. 2 Hele n and star s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 8
5.6. 3 Helen ? s conc e p t i o n of the Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 9
5.6. 4 Helen ? s conce p t i o n of the solar sy ste m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 9
5.6. 5 Helen ? s conce p t i o n of size and scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 0
5.6. 6 Helen ? s under s t a n d i n g of day and night . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 0
5.6. 7 Helen and the phas e s of the Moon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 1
vii
5. 6 . 8 Siph o and sate l l i t e dish e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 2
5.7 The Extent of Learning ..................................................................................... 133
5.7. 1 Prepa r a t i o n for, antic i p a t i o n of a nd know l e d g e rega r d i n g the visi t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 4
5.8 Knowled g e about Big Ideas in as trono my prior to the visit .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 8
5.8. 1 Grav i t y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 8
5.8. 2 Stars and the Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 3
5.8. 3 The Sola r sy ste m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 6
5.8. 4 Size and scal e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 7
5.8. 5 Day and Nigh t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 0
5.8. 6 The Moon Phas e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 5
5.8. 7 Parab o l i c / S a t e l l i t e Dish e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 6
5.9 Summary of collecti v e learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 7
6 A Human Constructivist An alysis of Learning ..................................................... 160
6.1 Introduc t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 0
6.2 Human Construc t i v i s m and Conceptu a l Change .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 1
6.3 Cognitiv e Do ma in .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 3
6.3. 1 Addi t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 3
6.3. 2 Emer g e n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 5
6.3. 3 Diffe r e n t i a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 6
6.3. 4 Disc r i m i n a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 7
6.3. 5 Recon t e x t u a l i s a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 8
6.3. 6 Super o r d i n a te Lear n i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 9
6.4 Affectiv e Do ma in .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 1
6.4. 1 Enjo y ab l e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 1
6.4. 2 Germ a n e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 1
6.4. 3 Sali e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 2
6.4. 4 Wond e r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 2
6.5 Conative Domain .............................................................................................. 173
6.6 Coding for Human Construc t i v i s t categori e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 5
6.7 Problems encount e r e d with the coding process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 5
7 How individual students learnt about astronomy (1) ........................................... 178
7.1 Introduc t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 8
7.2 The Schools ...................................................................................................... 178
7.2. 1 Balfo u r Fore s t Scho o l (BFS ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 8
7.2. 2 Lourd e s Girl s Scho o l (LGS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 9
7.2. 3 Achie v e m e n t Scho o l (AS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 9
7.2. 4 Boka mo s o Scho o l (BS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 9
7.3 Big Ideas and Individu a l Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 0
7.4 Use of Astronomy- R e l a t e d Vocabula r y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 5
7.5 The Students ..................................................................................................... 187
7.5. 1 Portr a i t of Nonku l u l e k o (swo 2 6 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 8
7.5. 2 Portr a i t of Botho (tsw 0 4 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 5
7.5. 3 Port r a i t of Neo (swo 4 2 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 2
7.5. 4 Portr a i t of John (vho 16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 1
7.6 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 221
viii
8 How individual students learnt about astronomy (2) ........................................... 223
8.1 Introduc t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 3
8.1. 1 Portr a i t of Fatim a (scf 1 5 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 3
8.1. 2 Portr a i t of Brend a (swo 7 0 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 1
8.1. 3 Portr a i t of Helen (scf 1 1 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 0
8.2 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 248
9 Discussion and Implications.................................................................................... 251
9.1 Introduc t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 1
9.2 Big Ideas in astronomy ..................................................................................... 252
9.2. 1 Grav i t y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 2
9.2. 2 Stars and the Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 3
9.2. 3 The Sola r Syst e m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 4
9.2. 4 Size and Scal e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 5
9.2. 5 Day and Nigh t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 6
9.2. 6 Moon Phas e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 6
9.2. 7 Satel l i t e / P a r a b o l i c Dish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 7
9.3 How Learning Occurs ....................................................................................... 258
9.3. 1 Cogn i t i v e Lear n i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 8
9.3. 2 Affec t i v e and Conat i v e Lear n i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 2
9.4 Methodological Findings .................................................................................. 265
9.4. 1 Issue s in Inter v i e w s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 5
9.4. 2 Person a l Meanin g Mappin g as a tec hn i q u e for data coll e c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 9
9.5 Misconceptions ................................................................................................. 271
9.6 Science Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 5
9.7 Role of Vocabulary ........................................................................................... 275
9.8 Critical Reflection of the Research Process ..................................................... 276
9.9 Conclusi o n s and recomme n d a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 7
9.10 Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8 0
9.11 Endpiece ........................................................................................................... 281
References .................................................................................................................. 283
10 Appendices................................................................................................................ 297
ii
Abstract
A l l studen t s are able to learn some th i n g about astron o my when they partic i p a t e in a school
visit to a site of informal learni ng such as a scienc e centr e . I examin e d how childr e n from
four schools experienced presentations and part ici p a t e d in activi t i e s about astronomy during a
two to four hour visit to either the Hart eb e e s t h o e k Radio Astron o my Observ a t o r y or the
Johannesburg Planetarium in South Africa. Th e case study involv e d obser vi n g thirty- f o u r 12-
to 14-year - o l d studen t s at the science centre and interv i e w i n g them about astron o my concep t s
includ i n g those based on person a l meanin g ma ps th ey drew prior to and after their visit . The
data were analyse d using a human constru c t i v i s t framewor k to determin e both what and how
studen t s learnt during their visit.
Despite a lack of teacher involv e me n t I show how student s collectively and
individ u a l l y learnt about con cep t s in astrono my , which I categor ised into a set of seven Big
Ideas: gravity, stars and the S un, size and scale, the Solar System, day and night, Moon
phases and parabolic dishes. Co llect i v e l y , there was an improve me n t in their knowled g e of
Big Ideas dealt with at the study sites , inclu d i n g gravit y , stars, the Sun, size and scale, and
parabol i c dishes . The student s s howed little change in their know led g e of day and night or the
phases of the Moon. Indivi d u a l l y , all student s l earn t princ i p a l l y by increme n t a l addit i o n of
knowle d g e , while some studen t s also de mons t r a t e d greater knowled g e restruc t u r i n g . Student s
with the least prior knowledge added additional basi c facts to their repe rt oi r e , while those
with greater prior knowle d g e were able to re organise their knowledge and achieve greater
understanding. All students also showed that the affective domain (for exampl e enjoyme n t
and wonder) contribu t e d to their learning by encouraging interest in astronomy . Some
students demonstr a t e d examples of conative learning in whic h their experi e n c e s prompt e d
them to furth e r actio n after their visit . While the visi t chang e d the misco n c e p t i o n s of some
students, it made little difference to others , and promote d miscon c e p t i o n s in a few.
Methodo l o g i c a l findin g s includ e d the value of using perso n a l meani n g maps, the impor t a n ce
of using mo dels during the in terview process and observations of how students used language
in their descrip t i o n of astrono mi c a l process e s .
The study suggest s that student s learn best from a range of activities clustered around
a central theme, and that enj oyable activities appear to enha nce learnin g . I recomme n d that
the astrono m y present e d at the centres focus on a limit e d numbe r of conce p t s in astro n o my ,
and that presentations and activities be stru ctured around those Big Ideas. Science centres
iii
shou l d provid e teache r s with guidel i n e s for thei r visit. I also propos e that activi t i e s aim to
recall student s ? prior knowled g e and provide situatio n a l interest to encou r a g e motiv a t i o n in
the topic of astrono my and the subject of scie nce . Finall y I suggest that science centre s
should combin e cognit i v e learni n g with affective fun, as r ecomme n d e d by students
parti c i p at i n g in the study.
Keywords
A s t r o n o my , Astron o m y Educat i o n , Constr u c t i v i s m, Huma n Cons t r u c t i v i s m, Infor ma l
Learnin g , Museum, Planeta r i u m, Science Centre.
ix
List of Appendices
Appendix A ..................................................................................................................... .. 298
Appendix B ..................................................................................................................... ... 299
Appendix C ..................................................................................................................... ... 302
Appendix D ..................................................................................................................... .. 305
Appendix E ..................................................................................................................... ... 308
Appendix F ..................................................................................................................... ... 309
Appendix G ..................................................................................................................... .. 311
Appendix H ..................................................................................................................... .. 312
Appendix I ..................................................................................................................... .... 313
Appendix J ..................................................................................................................... .... 314
Appendix K ..................................................................................................................... .. 323
x
List of Figures
F i g u r e 1.1 Current foci of research into visitor studies (Rennie, 2001) ............................. 5
Figure 2.1 The Contextual Model of Learning (Falk and Dierking 2000) ....................... 38
Figure 2.2 Concept Map of Human Construc t i v i s m (aft e r Mintz e s and Wander s e e
1998) ............................................................................................................... 42
Figure 3.1 A Personal Meaning Ma p constructed by Bhekiwe........................................ 56
Figure 3.2 Example of initial PMM drawn on chalkboa r d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8
Figure 3.3 The sequence of even ts in data collecti o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7
Figure 4.1 The Turntable .................................................................................................. 80
Figure 4.2 Moon Phases ................................................................................................... 82
Figure 4.3 Projection of the Sun ...................................................................................... 83
Figure 4.4 Sundial ............................................................................................................ 8 4
Figure 4.5 Whisper Dish and Telescope .......................................................................... 85
Figure 4.6 Launchin g Rockets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7
Figure 4.7 Coke cans and gravity ..................................................................................... 88
Figure 4.8 Cos mic Pinball . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9
Figure 4.9 Taking the Solar System for a walk: the Sun .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 0
Figure 4.10 The Second South African in Space ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2
Figure 4.11 The radio tele scope at HartRAO ..................................................................... 94
Figure 4.12 Zeiss star project or in the planetarium .......................................................... 100
Figure 5.1 Student preparat i on for the visit (n=34) ........................................................ 136
Figure 5.2 Student anticip a t i o n of visit. Some student s gave more than one purpose ,
so the totals do not add to 100% ................................................................... 137
Figure 5.3 Students? conceptions of gravit y (Pre-visit: n=28; post-visit: n=27) ............ 140
Figure 5.4 Students? ideas of gravity on Jupiter (n=24) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 2
Figure 5.5 Students? ideas of gravity on the Moon (n=25) ............................................ 143
Figure 5.6 Students ? concep ti o n s of stars (n=34) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 4
Figure 5.7 Student s ? concep t i o ns of the Sun (n=34) ...................................................... 145
Figure 5.8 Students? conceptions of the Solar System (n=8) ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 7
Figure 5.9 Student s ? concep t i o ns of size and scale ........................................................ 148
Figure 5.10 Student s ? knowled g e of the si ze of the Sun and Moon (n=34 pre-visit,
n=29 post-visit) ............................................................................................. 150
Figure 5.11 Students ? concepti o n s of th e cause of day and night (n=34) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 1
Figure 5.12 Student s ? explana t ion of Moon phases (Pre-visit n=34; post-visit n=19) .... 156
Figure 5.13 Students ? concepti o n s of parabol ic/satellite dishes (n=26; only HartRAO
students) ........................................................................................................ 157
xi
Figure 5.14 Summary of pe rcenta g e changes in levels for 5 Big Ideas ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 8
Figure 5.15 Summar y of percen t a g e change s in levels for signif i c a n t ideas and
domi nant artefact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 8
Figure 6.1 Part of Brenda?s post- visit Personal Meaning Map ...................................... 164
Figure 7.1 Scatter g r a m of student s ? pre- and post-vi s i t mean scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 1
Figure 7.2 Graph showin g studen t s acro ss the range of learnin g about whom
portrait s are written. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 3
Figure 7.3 Nonkulul e k o ? s pre-vi si t Personal Meaning Map ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 0
Figure 7.4 Nonkululeko?s post-visit PMM .................................................................... 192
Figure 7.5 Botho?s pre-visit PMM ................................................................................. 197
Figure 7.6 Botho?s post-vis i t PMM ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 9
Figure 7.7 Neo?s PMM (pre and post) ........................................................................... 204
Figure 7.8 John?s pre-visit PMM ................................................................................... 214
Figure 7.9 John?s post-visit PMM .................................................................................. 216
Figure 8.1 Fatima?s PMM (pre- and post-vis i t ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 6
Figure 8.2 Brenda?s PMM (pre and post) ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 4
Figure 8.3 Helen?s PMM (pre and post) ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 3
xii
List of Tables
T a b l e 1.1 Researc h avenues as propose d by Rennie and colleag u e s (2003) that I
used in my study. .............................................................................................. 3
Table 1.2 School groups as a frac tion of total child visitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2.1 List of peer-reviewed studies of astrono my educat i o n resear c h since 1975.. . 1 6
Table 2.2 Number s of articl e s relate d to planetaria in databases .................................... 23
Table 2.3 Wellington?s (1990) cl assification of learning ............................................... 26
Table 3.1 Key concept s in astronom y identi f i e d at each study site .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 0
Table 3.2 Participant schools in the study ...................................................................... 66
Table 3.3 Informed consent returns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8
Table 4.1 Relation s h i p of data sources to criteria for constructing narrative ................. 76
Table 5.1 De mogra p h i c informa t i o n on sample of student s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 0
Table 5.2 Big Ideas used in my study ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3
Table 5.3 Criter i a for assign i n g studen t s to knowle d g e catego r i e s for Big and
Significant Ideas and the Domi nant Artefact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 4
Table 5.4 Response s to Question B1 and B2: Where are you going/di d you go on
the forthcoming visit? What subject a nd topi c area is/wa s the visit relat ed
to? ................................................................................................................. 134
Table 5.5 Purpose of visit: Response s to Questio n B3: What do you think is/was
the purpose of the visit? .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 5
Table 6.1 Knowledge Construction categor i e s defined in my study .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 2
Table 7.1 Categor i s a t i o n scheme for stude nts (n=34) based on their pre- and post-
vis i t knowledg e of Big Ideas concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 4
Table 7.2 Catego r i s a t i o n scheme showin g studen t number s from each school . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 5
Table 7.3 Summar y of increa s e in astr onomy - r e l a t e d vocabula r y shown by students
(n=34) ........................................................................................................... 186
Table 7.4 Mean number of astron o m y - r e l a t e d words used by student s in the pre-
visit and addit i o na l words used in post- v i s i t PMMs categ or i s e d by Big
Ideas scores .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 7
Table 7.5 Student s select e d for whom portra i t s were writte n, using the
catego r i s a t i o n scheme of studen t s developed in Chapter 6. ......................... 187
Table 7.6 Position of Nonkululeko on Big Ideas classification table ........................... 188
Table 7.7 Nonkulul e k o ? s know ledge of Big Ideas........................................................ 188
Table 7.8 Frequency of Human Constr u c t i v i s m c odes for Nonkulu l e k o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 4
Table 7.9 Position of Botho on Bi g Ideas classification table ...................................... 195
Table 7.10 Botho?s knowledg e of Big Ideas ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 5
Table 7.11 Frequency of Human Co nstruc t i v i s m codes for Botho ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 1
xiii
Tabl e 7.12 Positio n of Neo on Big Ideas classi f i c a t i o n tabl e .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 2
Table 7.13 Neo?s knowledg e of Big Ideas ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 2
Table 7.14 Frequency of Human Co nstructivism codes for Neo ................................... 210
Table 7.15 Positio n of John on Big Ideas classif i c a t i o n table .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 1
Table 7.16 John?s knowledg e of Big Ideas ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 1
Table 7.17 Frequency of Human Co nstructivism codes for John ................................... 220
Table 8.1 Positi o n of Fatima on Bi g Ideas classification table ..................................... 223
Table 8.2 Fatima? s knowled g e of Big Ideas .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 3
Table 8.3 Ways in which Fatima ch anged her ideas about concept s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 7
Table 8.4 Frequency of Human Co nstru c t i v i s m codes for Fatima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 9
Table 8.5 Position of Brenda on Bi g Ideas classification table .................................... 231
Table 8.6 Brenda?s knowledge of Big Ideas ................................................................. 232
Table 8.7 Ways in which Brenda ch anged her ideas about concept s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 5
Table 8.8 Frequency of Human Co nstruc t i v i s m codes for Brenda .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 9
Table 8.9 Position of Helen on Bi g Ideas classification table ...................................... 240
Table 8.10 Helen?s knowledg e of Big Ideas ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 0
Table 8.11 Frequency of Human Co nstruc t i v i s m codes for Helen ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 7
Table 9.1 Summary of cogniti v e learning by case study students ................................ 258
Table 9.2 Summary of affectiv e and c onative learning by case study students . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 3
Table 9.3 Activit i e s at HartRAO which resulted in affective learning ......................... 263
Table 9.4 Presen t a t i o n s at th e planet a r i u m whi c h result e d in affective learning.......... 264
xiv
Abbreviations
A S Achie v e me n t Schoo l
BFS Balfou r Forest School
BS Boka mos o School
CCM Conceptu a l Change Model
CML Context u a l Model of Learnin g
GET Genera l Educat i o n and Traini n g
HartRA O Harteb e e s t h o e k Radio Astrono my Observ a t o r y
HC Human Const r u ct i vi s m
HSS Human and Social Scienc e
HU Herme n e u t i c Unit
IK Indigeno u s Knowledg e
LGS Lourde s Girls School
MLC Museum Learning Collaborative
NARS T National Association for Resear c h in Scienc e Teach i n g
NASA Nation a l Aeron a u t i c s and Space Admi ni s t r a t i o n
NRF Nation a l Resear c h Founda t i o n
NS Natur a l Scien c e
PCK Pedagogi c a l Content Knowledg e
PMM Persona l Meanin g Map
RNCS Revised Nation a l Curric u l u m State me n t
SALT South African Large Telesco p e
SD Standar d Deviati o n
1
Chapter 1
1 Introduction to the study
This chapter provides an overview of the study, why it was conducted, how the
research questions are framed conceptually, the researcher?s positionality and
the sequence of the chapters.
1.1 Introduction
A s t r o n o my can be regard e d as a relati v e l y familiar disc ipli n e for students and their
teache r s , as it crossc u t s the subjec t s of sc ienc e , techno l o g y , geogra p h y and histor y and can
be used as a unifyin g theme for project work in schools. For some phenome n a , such as day
and night, star constel l a t i o n s , the seasons and the phases of the moon, direct observ a t i o n is
simple and practic a l . Howeve r , what makes the study of astronomy more challenging are
the non-i nt ui t i ve , relat i ve l y compl e x and abstr a c t explan a t i o n s needed to elucida t e the
observat i o n s . A further attracti o n of astron o my as a discip l i n e is the fact that it asks some
of the ?big quest i o n s ? in sc ienc e and philos o p h y , such as ?Are we alone? ? and ?Where do
we come from? ? While the aski n g of such que sti o n s is someti me s encou r a g e d by more
innovat i v e teacher s , astrono my is a topic which lends itself to practical and out-of-school
approa c h e s where childr e n can experie n c e the st udy of the univers e or the force of gravity
in a more authe n t i c conte x t than that of the classr o o m. This thesis expl or e s what process e s
of learni n g take place when a school stude n t goes outsi d e the classr o om and experi e n ce s
the prese n t at i o n of astrono my conce p t s in an infor ma l setti ng . What does she learn? How
does he learn about it? How does their pr ior knowled g e influen c e their learnin g ?
1.2 Background and Rationale for the Study
M a n y childr e n ? s natur a l inter e s t in space and the stars has been identi f i e d as a way of
encoura g i n g them into the science s (e.g. Jarma n & McAlee s e , 1996) . Howev e r ,
parti c i p at i o n and achie ve me n t in scien c e at secon d a r y school level in South e r n Africa are
not as high as educati o n author i t i e s , employ e r s and insti t u t i ons would like (Depa rt me n t of
Educat i o n , 2000). As the histor y of scien ce educatio n research shows, understa n d i n g
learning and developing better peda gogy to assist in the learning of the sciences has been a
major ai m of scien c e educa t i o ni s t s over the past twent y - fi v e years . As I demon s t r a t e in the
2
liter a t u r e revie w in Chapt e r 2, most resea r c h in astronom y educat i o n has examine d
studen t s ? concep t i o n s and misconc e p t i o n s . The a im of the empiric a l study describ e d in this
thesi s is to under s t a n d how child r e n learn , not in the class r o om , but in the infor ma l setti ngs
of a planet a r i u m and the visito r s ? centre of an obser v a t or y . The resear ch falls withi n the
general frame wo r k s of visito r studie s and learnin g at muse u ms and scien c e centr e s, which
have developed over the past thirty years. Resear c h into this type of learn i n g is parti c ul a rl y
important in South Africa for a number of reas ons . First, very little resear c h has been
carried out in South Afr i ca on visitor studies. Secondly, if scien c e and te chnolo g y are to
develo p in South Africa as envisa g e d by th e govern me n t (Depa r t me n t of Arts Cultur e
Science and Technology, 1996), then both the Public Awarene s s of Science and the
attrac t i o n of larger number s of school child ren into science-related subjects are high
prioriti e s for research . Thirdl y, scholars such as Gardner (1993) suggest that present day
for mal schoo l i n g has become less signif i c a n t for the majority of young people. Although
this may not be as true in South Afric a as it is in the USA, the kind of infor ma l learnin g
that takes place in a planet a r i u m, museu m or scien c e centr e is impor t a nt to study preci s e l y
becau s e such insti t u t i o ns can provi de motiv a t i o n for stude n t s and can engag e them in the
kind of ?big ideas? in sc ie n c e refe r r ed to in Chapt e r 5. Inte re st in lear n i n g in scie n c e cent r e s
is gainin g a higher profi l e in South Afric a , as the numbe r of scien c e centr e s incre a s e s , and
both the govern me n t and donors questi o n the imp act that such scienc e centre s can make.
In Southern Africa, astronomy is import a n t for other reas ons. Due to the fact that
we are situa t e d in the south e r n hemi s p h e r e , have wide sky coverag e , lie longitu d i n a l l y
close to the Green w i c h merid i a n , have rela tively sophisticated communication facilities,
and have relativ e l y low levels of light polluti on, we are positioned fa vourably to contribute
to the science of astrono my on a global scale (Square Kilometre Array, nd). The
establ i s h me n t of the South Afric a n Large Tele scope (SALT) at Suther l an d in the North e rn
Cape Province and the current bid for the Squar e Kilome t r e Array (a massi v e radio
telescope) are both examples of recent initia t i v e s by governme n t and the private sector
which highli g h t the country ? s commit me n t to astron o my . Politi c a l commit me n t has been
forth c o mi n g too; in his speec h openi n g parliame n t in 2004, Presiden t Thabo Mbeki
referred to the developme n t of Southern Africa as a global hub for astronomy, space
science and technology, while the Minister of Science and Technology has mentioned
impor t a n t devel o p me n t s in space scien c e and astron o my in his budget speec h in 2006
(Depar t me n t of Scienc e and Techno l o g y , 2006). Together, these activities and
3
underta k i n g s reflect a growing profile of as trono my within South Africa which provide s
furth e r motiv a t i o n for condu c t i n g re sear c h into astrono my educat i o n .
Over the past decade , museu m pract i t i o ne r s and schola r s have attempt e d to define
an agenda for resear c h at si tes of infor ma l learnin g . Leona Schauble and colleagues at the
Museum Learni n g Collab o r a t i v e (MLC) have pr opose d a sociocu l t u r a l agenda (Schau b l e ,
Leinhardt & Martin, 1997) for ?g ener a l ? , non science - s p e c i f i c sites, while others have
suggest e d a science - s p e c i f i c frame wo r k (Marti n , 2001, 2004). Howeve r , a numb er of
informa l learni n g resear c h e r s have propos e d a wider agenda based on the Nation a l
Assoc i a t i o n for Resear c h in Scienc e Teach i n g (NARST ) Policy Stateme n t on Informa l
Scien c e Educa t i o n (Renn i e , Feher , Dierk i n g & Falk, 2003). This wider agenda embrace s
other theor e t i c a l frame w o r k s for resear c h in additio n to the so ci oc u l t ur a l appr o a c h
espoused by the MLC. Rennie and colleagues id entify six avenues for future research, and
when plannin g and conduct i n g my researc h I br oadl y aligne d my object i v e s with three of
the avenue s propo s e d in the Rennie agend a to ensure that my study was both relevan t and
current . Table 1.1 shows the three avenues to gether with the respective NARST policy
state me n t s and how I addres s e d the issue in my own study.
Table 1.1 Research avenues as proposed by Rennie and colleagues (2003) that I used
in my study.
Research avenue NARST policy statement My study
E x a mi n i n g the prec u r s o r s to
the actua l engag e men t in
learn i n g .
Out-o f - s c h o o l learn i n g is
self- mo t i v a t e d , volunt a r y ,
and guide d by learn e r s ? need s
and intere s t s , so certai n
aspect s of lea rni n g are
critic a l to invest i g a t e .
I exami n e d how stud e n t s ?
inter e s t s , prior knowl e d g e
and belief s affect e d the
learni n g exper i e n c e at the
science centre ? see Chapt ers
7 and 8.
Inves t i g a t i n g the proce s s of
learn i n g .
Learni n g is both a proces s
and a produ c t so we need to
investi g a t e both the process e s
of learnin g as well as the
produ c t s .
I exa mi n e d what studen t s
learn t about astro n o my (see
Chapter 5) as well as how
they learn e d (see Chapt e r s 6
to 8)
Expan d i ng the varie t y of
metho d s used to carry out our
resea rch.
Informa l lear ni n g requir e s
multi p l e creat i v e metho d s for
asses s i n g it. ?Inno v a t i v e
resea r c h desi g n s , metho d s ,
and analy se s are critica l .
I used Perso n a l Meani n g
Mapping as one resear c h
tool, analy se d my data
quali t a t i v e ly using the
softw a r e prog r a m ATLA S . t i
and used narra t i v e s and
portra i t s as way s of sharin g
my find i n g s .
4
Most of the curre n t resea r c h into museu m and science centre learning takes place in
develop e d countr i e s , where intere s t has focuse d on genera l visito r s , family - g r o u p learni n g ,
and to a lesser extent school visits (Fal k & Dierking , 2000). Table 1.2 shows approxima t e
percentages of child visitors in the for m of school groups from muse ums and scienc e
centres in Europe, the USA and New Zealand co mpa r e d with three sites in South Afric a ,
two of which were the locati ons for my study. The table show s that the proportions of
childr e n visiti n g in school groups in South Africa are mu ch higher than overseas. I
theref o r e consid e r e d that sc hool groups, which would includ e a broad spect r u m of childr e n
represe n t a t i v e of the demogra p h i c s of the populat i o n of Sout h Africa , would be the most
appropri a t e sector in wh ich to target my study.
Table 1.2 School groups as a fraction of total child visitors
Location Percentage of
total children
in organised
school groups
Source
N a t u r a l Histo r y Museum,
Lond on , UK.
10 (Hawk e y , 2001 )
Jodre l l Bank Visit o r s ? Centr e ,
UK.
23 (Cha p l i n , 1997 )
Observa t o r y Science Centre,
UK
33 (J. Harris , pers. co mm. )
Expl o r a t o r i um, San Franc i s c o ,
USA
<25 (Exp l o r a t o r i um, 2006 )
Stard o m e Obser v a t o r y , NZ 50 (A. Bucki n g ha m, pers. co mm. )
SciBo n o Disco v e ry Centr e ,
Johan n e s b u r g, SA
75 (SciB o n o stati s t i c s 2005)
Johan n e s b u r g Plane t a r i u m, SA 75 (Joha n n e s b u r g Plane t a r i u m stati s t i c s 2000-
2 0 0 4 )
Harte b e e s t h o e k Radio
Astro n o my Obser v a t o r y , SA
89 (Hart R A O stati s t i c s 2002- 20 0 4 )
1.3 Research Problem and Research Questions
A t school level, basic astron o my has traditi o n a l l y been taught as part of geograph y in the
old curric u l u m (prio r to 1990), and later as pa rt of Human and Social Scienc e . With the
advent of the new curricu l u m introd u c e d in 1997 and its subsequent revision as the
Revised Nation a l Curric u l u m Stateme n t (Depar t me n t of Educati o n , 2002) astrono my was
transf e r r e d to the learni ng area of Natura l Sc ienc e , and given a more promin e n t place in the
5
curri c u l u m as part of the ?O ur Place in Space? in the ?P lanet Earth and Beyond? knowledg e
strand . With the change in curric u l um being such a recent devel o p me n t , there is little or no
publish e d resear c h concer n i n g how astrono my is being curren t l y taught and learnt in South
Afric a n schoo l s . When teachi n g astro n o my , some teache r s have opted to run a school field
trip to a scien c e cent r e whic h cove r s the topi c , either as a support or a repl acement for their
own teachi ng . When develo p i n g my propos a l for my doctor a l resear c h I was intere s t e d in
how both studen t s and their te ach e r s gaine d from the exper i e nc e of visit i n g a scienc e
centre relat ed to the topic of astronomy. I developed research questions to investigate the
exten t to which learn i n g takes place at such centre s , and how what is taught relate s to the
school curric u l u m. As the resear c h progre s s e d , I realise d that most teache r s who arrang e d a
visit for their stude nt s did not th emse l v e s partic i p a t e to any gr eat extent in the teachi n g and
learni n g proces s either before , during or after th e visit, and I decided therefore to focus on
learnin g by the student s onl y (see Section 3.4.2).
Scien c e centr e s are a speci a l i s e d form of museu m in which inter a c t i v e displ a y s are
arrang e d themat i c a l l y (McMan u s , 1992), a nd fall under the broad area of muse um or
visitor studie s . Within this field, my area of study is visitor learni n g , as shown in Figure
1.1
Figure 1.1 Current foci of research into visitor studies (Rennie, 2001)
Visitor Studies
Behaviour
during the visit
Visitor-related
(what they do)
Exhibit-related
(how they
interact)
Social
Interaction
Physical
Environment
Visitor
Learning
Exhibit
Appraisal
Profile of
Visitors
Impact on the
environment
6
The learni n g sites that I chose were the Johann e s b u r g Plane t a r i u m on the campus of the
University of the Witwatersrand, and the Hartebeesthoek Radio As tro n o my Obser v a t o r y
some 50km West of Pret ori a , South Africa .
My final researc h questio n s were defined as follows :
1. To what extent do students learn in the pr oce s s of a visit to a plane t a r i u m or the
visit or s ? centr e of an astro n o mi c a l obser v a t or y?
2. H o w is the content of astronom y communi c a t e d to student s ?
3. W h a t are stude n t s ? individ u a l experiences of the visit?
4. H o w do students construc t knowledg e during and after the visit?
5. H o w do student s ? interes t s and prior knowle dge affect the learning experience of a
school visit?
1.4 Conceptual Framework
T h e study is informed by the notion of inform al learning as involving an out-of-school,
unstru c t u r e d , volunt a r y activi t y (Crane , 1994). It is further informed by John Falk and
Lynn Dierkin g ? s Context u a l Model of Learni n g (Falk & Dierkin g , 2000) that identif i e s the
personal, sociocultural and physic al contexts as significant features of the environment
which intera c t to infl ue n c e lear n i n g in museu ms . I also use the conce p t of human
constru c t i v i s m (Mintze s , Wanders e e & Novak, 1997) as a theoret i c a l constr u c t in which to
embed the resear c h and to expl a in how childr e n lear n at sites of infor ma l lear ni ng.
Althou g h based on constr u c t i v i s m, I adopt a ?m odes t realis t ? stance (Osbor n e 1996), which
I elabor a t e on in sectio n s 1.5 and 2.2. Modest realis m combin e s the advant a g e s of a
constr u c t i v i s t theore t i c a l fra mew o r k in the area of studen t learn i n g , while at the same time
recogn i s i n g that there is an ont ological reality, which has been establis h e d by scientists by
repeti t i v e and routin e confi r ma t i o n . It is this realit y that studen t s are learning about in
scien c e , assis t e d by their visit to the scien c e centr e .
In Chapt e r 2 I show that despi t e the cons id e r a b l e resear c h into astron o my educat i o n
and informa l learning over the past thirty years, no studies combine the two fields, and my
use of a human const r u c t i vi s t theore t i ca l framew o r k focusi n g on student learni n g makes
my study both unique and an importa n t contrib u t i o n to the literat u r e .
1.5 The Researcher and Positionality
T h e research I conducte d falls w ithin a qualitative, interpretivi st paradigm (see Chapter 3).
Accordi n g to qualita t i v e resear c h e r s such as Tobin ( 2000) and Henning (2004), it is
7
impor t a n t in inter p r e t i v e resea r c h for the rese a r c h e r to provi d e a clear accou n t of who he or
she is, and how he or she has influe n c e d the results by engaging in the research process.
Positi o n a l i t y is defined as the ?knower ? s spec if i c positi o n in any context as defined by
race, gender , class, and other social l y signi f i c a n t dime n s i o n s ? (Mahe r & Tetre a ul t , 1994 p.
22). The followi n g paragr a p h s portra y me as th e researc h e r , and attempt to show how my
posit i o na l i t y may have inter a c t e d with the research conducte d .
I am a white male living in Johannes burg, South Africa. Born in the United
Kingdo m, I have always been intere s t e d in amateur astronom y , and, along with many of
my gener a t i o n , the Apoll o missi ons fired my imagi n a t i on regar di n g space trave l and
researc h . Howeve r , my main interes t as a youth was a passion for ornithology. Together
with two friends , I would spend hours visitin g si tes of ornith o l o g i c a l in terest, recording the
number and types of birds seen, and we w ould compare notes with other enthusiasts.
Although an obsession during my teenage years, by the time I went to the University of
Durham, I had decided to pursue Geology as a degree. One of our courses was in lunar
geology, and it was very exciting to see the recen t l y acquired moon rocks with which some
of the professo r s were working. After l eaving Durham I worked as a ?conser v a t i o n
geolog i s t ? for six mont hs before leavin g for Nepal, where I studie d Himal a y a n Pheas a n t s
as part of a conser v a t i o n proje c t there . I wrote up the results of this study as a Masters
thesi s when I return e d to the UK and subse q u e nt l y comple t e d a teach er training course. I
taught in a Sixth Form Colleg e in Essex for th ree years before applyi ng for a job teaching
in Botswana.
I lived in Botswa n a for 10 years, marrie d there and worked in the area of scienc e
teach e r educa t i o n in a rural colle ge of edu ca t i o n . I moved to Johan n e s b u r g in 1995, a year
after the end of apart h e i d , and took a job at the Unive r si t y of the Witwate r s r a n d runnin g
teacher upgradi n g program m e s . With an edu catio n grounded in the scienc es and teaching
in the disciplines of geology, biology, envi ronmental science and science teaching
method o l o g y , my outlook has been strongl y in fluenced by positivis t scien c e views .
Howeve r , since teachi ng in a univer s i t y I have been able to interr o ga t e thes e to some
exten t , as my teach i ng style has alway s b een broad l y const r u c t i vi s t , attempt i n g to
determi n e what prior knowle d g e studen t s po ssess and scaffolding their learning towards
the goals of the course . My basic premis e is th at in scienc e there is a real world out there
which can be investigated, so I would regard myself as a ?modest r ealist? (Osborne 1996).
Whil e I accep t the relat i v i st posi t i o n of const r u c t i v i s m can assist studen t s in learnin g ,
8
whereb y the teacher needs to work with learner s ? views, I would still ma in t a i n that some of
those views might be misconc e p t i o n s , and part of the teach e r? s role is to move those
concep t i o n s toward s more scienti f i c ones. How this is done is crucia l for the learne r , and
some of the discu s si o n in this thesi s exami n e s ways in which miscon c e p t i o n s can be used
posit i ve l y as a basis for a progr es s i o n towa rds a more scient i fi c unde r s t a n di ng of a
concep t .
My modes t reali s t stanc e means that I have some misgi vi n g s about embrac i n g
views of indigenous knowledge (IK) and wo rld v i e w theory curren t l y popula r in the
liter a t u r e . While I consi d e r it impor t a n t to value and acknowl e d g e indige n o u s knowle d g e
as part of what has histori c a l l y been devel oped and used in South Africa, IK should not be
confu s e d with scienc e , which has compl e t e l y different standards for veri fi cati on and
theori s i n g . The values of openne s s and peer revi ew in science are very differen t from the
often secre t tradi t i o na l l y- c o m mu n i c a t e d means by which IK is trans mi t t e d . For this reason
I did not choose to investi g a t e studen t s ? cult ur a l or religio u s belief s about astron o my in
depth, even though they may affect learni n g . I accept that my values are theref o r e very
much consistent with a White Anglo Saxon Pr otest a n t upbring i n g , an d are not currently
polit i c al l y corre ct . My value s colou r the interpr et a t i o n I bring to the data in the thesi s , as I
presu ma b l y am tryin g to searc h for a ?trut h ? in the learni n g by studen t s visiti n g scienc e
centre s . Howev e r , I feel it is impor t a n t to search for that truth using quali t a t i v e rathe r than
quantit a t i v e approac h e s , as only the for mer are able to obtai n rich detai l e d data on
stude n t s? ideas . I need to accept that when I intervi e w e d studen t s during data collec t i o n
they would have seen me as an author i t y figur e , not dissimi l a r to some of their teach e r s ,
and what they told me would have been in the light of their percepti o n of what I wanted to
hear. Some of these issues might be threat s to quality and trustwor thiness of the findings,
and it is impor t a nt for the reader to know these upfr o n t , so as to be able to better deter mi n e
the qualit y of the thesis .
Despi t e these const r ai n t s , I consi d e r that my resea r c h has been able to inves t i g a t e
childr e n ? s thinki n g about astron o my and at least to some exten t provide insights into what
and how they learnt at a scienc e centr e .
1.6 Structure of the Thesis
M y thesis consis t s of nine chapte r s , starti n g with this introdu c t i o n to the research. In
Chapt e r 2 I select i v el y revie w the relev a n t li tera t u r e of astron o my educat i o n and informa l
9
learni n g which form the backgr o u n d to the study. Acknow l e d g i n g that much of the
previo u s resear c h has lacked a theore t i c a l basis for the claims made, I introduce the
theore t i c a l frame w o r k of huma n const r u ct i vi s m as a perti ne n t concep t u a l basis for my
study. Chapter 3 describe s my research me thodology, case study design, my research
instru me n t s and how the data was collec t e d , as well as addre s s i n g issue s of ethic s and
rigour . Chapte r 4 is the fi rst of the ?finding ? s chapters , and co nsists of narratives describing
students? visits to Harteb e e s t h o e k Radio Astron o my Obse rv a t o r y and the Johann e s b u r g
Planetarium. This is followed by Chapter 5 wh ich summarises learni ng about Big Ideas in
astronomy by the 34 students in my study. Chap ter 6 provides greater detail about how a
Human Const r u ct i vi s t theor e t i c al frame w o r k is used to analyse learni n g by individ u a l
students, while Chapters 7 and 8 provide seve n portraits of students who showed differing
degree s of learnin g at the science centre s . Chapt e r 9 compl e t e s the thesi s by summa r i si n g
the main finding s of the study, relati n g them to the literature and discussing their
implic a t i o n s in the field of infor ma l learni n g .
10
Chapter 2
In this chapter I review a selection of th e literature related to science education
in general and astronomy education in par ticular, as well as the literature on
informal learning pertinent to the study. In the light of this review I then
present theoretical frameworks in th e form of human constructivism and
conceptual change, which underpin the study.
2 Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
A studen t who visits a scienc e centre su ch as the Johann e s b u r g Planet a r i u m or
Hartebe e s t h o e k Radio Astrono my Observatory (HartRAO) visito rs? centre par ticipates in
an experience which has been influenced by a varied body of work. The major influence is
proba b l y the popul a r artic l e s of the newsl e t t e r s and journ a l s read by the pract i t i o ner s of
museums and science centres. However, the acti viti e s that take place at astronomy science
centres have their roots in the field of scie nce , science educati o n , astronomy education and
the literatu r e of infor mal learning .
This researc h study draws upon three fields of researc h : the prolifi c litera t u r e on
scienc e educa t i o n in genera l , the exten s i v e lite r at u r e over the past thirt y year s in the area of
astron o my educat i o n and, most import a n t l y , the museum and infor ma l learnin g literat u r e .
As the focus of my study is learning in the scien c e centr e, the l iter a t ur e revi e w e d in this
chapter concent r a t e s on article s , books and other resour c e s whic h highligh t learning .
2.2 Research in Science Education
S c h o l a r s of scienc e educat i o n resear c h cl aim that during the first half of the 20 th centu r y,
scien c e teach i n g as well as learni ng theor i e s associ a t e d with scienc e educat i o n were
predomi n a n t l y positi v i s t (Poole , 1995) and be havi o u r i s t (Duit & Treag us t , 1998) in nature.
Over the past twenty years , there have been va rious attempt s to revi ew researc h in science
educa t i o n and its develo p me n t , and to place the variou s theor e t i c a l orient a t i o n s into a
fra mewor k . Eylon and Linn (1988) id ent i f i e d four resear c h posit i o ns :
11
? t h e ?deve l o pme n t a l persp e c t i ve ? which wa s heavi l y infl u e nc ed by the theor e t i c a l
work of Jean Piage t , and encompa s s e s re sea r c h into how me ntal reasoning in
scienc e develo p s over the sc hool- g o i n g years of a child;
? t h e ?diffe r e n t i al perspe c t i v e ? which exam i n e d the relat i o n s hi p betwe e n inst r u ct i o n
and learne r s ? indivi d u a l differ e n c e s in ability and aptitude, and how they can
explai n conce p t u a l change ;
? t h e ?conce p t learni n g ? perspe c t i v e , consis t i n g of the concep t i on/ mi s c o n c e p t i o n 1 and
concept u a l change researc h of the const r u ct i vi s t schoo l ; and
? t h e ?probl e m- s o l v i n g ? perspe c t i v e which c overs researc h into the science problem-
s o l v i n g proces s e s employ e d by learner s
While the first two positi o ns have long hi stories, overlapping with much of the
behavi o u ri s t work earlie r in the twenti e t h century , the latter two are based on studies
conduc t e d since the 1960s. In a length y analys i s and using repres e n t a t i v e studie s , Eylon
and Linn compar e the perspe c t i v e s with each ot her , and propo s e an integ r a t e d perspe c t i ve
on scienc e educa t i o n . They note that the larg e number of studies has provide d somewha t
fragme n t e d knowle d g e of the scienc e learne r , an d that collab o r a t i o n acr oss the perspec t i v e s
would provid e the more cohere n t pictur e that the field requir e s .
Ten years after this review, Duit and Treagus t (1998) report that there has been ?an
encouraging tendency towards an ?inclusive ? view of science learning which brings
togethe r approa c h e s of differe n t theore t i c a l orientations? (p.8). They conclude that
conceptual change strategies based on social const r u ct i vi s t views of learni n g may help in
providing an inclusive frame wo r k for future resea r c h .
While Eylon and Linn use a persp e c t i va l appr o a c h in their analy se s, Erick s o n
(2000) takes a programma t i c approa c h which uses Lakatos? analysis of scientific progress
as a lens to examine science education. Eric kson identifies three ?research programme s ?
withi n scienc e resea r c h over the past 25 year s : the Piage t i a n , the const r u ct i v i s t and the
phenomen o l o g i c a l programm e s . Erickson consid e r s that while the Piage t i a n progra m m e
has had a major influen c e on science educati o n ov er the past 30 years , it peake d in the late
1970s and is now waning, with a consider a b l e decline in the number of studies since the
1 In this thesis I will use the term ?misco n cep tio n? to cov er the variou s terms used by differen t auth ors,
inclu d in g ?altern ativ e concep tio n s?, ?precon cep tio ns?, ?intuitive concep tions? and ?alternative frameworks?.
12
1980s. In contras t the constru c tivist research progr am me has become domi nan t in the
stude n t scien c e learni n g liter a t ur e since the mid-19 8 0 s . Ericks o n ? s own resear c h fits within
the phenom e n o l o g i c a l progr a m me , and he provid e s a useful summa r y of recent resea r c h in
the area. Although Erickson?s approach is valuab le in that it provides an altern a t i v e view
of science educati o n researc h , he provide s little evidence that the phenomenol ogical
progra m me is likely to b ecome as domina n t as either of the other two.
An exa min a t i o n of any of the major scienc e educa t i o n journ a l s demon s t r a t e s that
the curren t predo mi n a n t theor y of pedago g y with in science education is constructivism. As
a basis for pedagogy it has few rivals, despite possible contenders such as the history and
philosophy of science school (Matthews, 2000). C onst r u c t i v i s m can be regarde d as having
two major strand s , radica l constr u c t i v i s m and so cia l const r uct i v i s m. Radic a l const r u c t i v i s t s
maint a i n a basic assumpt i o n ?that reali t y exis ts but cannot be known as a set of truths ?
(Tobin , Tippin s & Gallar d , 1994 p. 47). Within the overall strand of radi cal construc t i v i s m
are views of const r uc t i vi s m in which an indivi dual builds up his or her own view of the
world from person a l experi e n c e . This ?perso n a l? constructivist school developed from the
work of Piaget? s develop me n t a l theories and has given rise to a smal l numbe r of rela t e d
views of learnin g .
One of thes e is the human cons t r uc t i vi s t view of learnin g develo p e d by Joseph
Novak and others (e.g. Mintze s et al., 1997; Novak & Gowin, 1984) , which incorporates
both the theory of meanin g f u l learni n g advan c e d by Ausub e l and colla b or a t o rs in the late
1970s, and views of constru c t i v ism that involve a radical restructuring of knowledge
(Mintz e s & Wander s e e , 1998). In human constr u c t i v i s m, learning is regarded as being
some t i me s slow and incre me n t a l , resul t i n g in a ?weak? form of restructuring of knowledge,
while at other time s, particu l a r l y during ?aha ? experi e n c e s or ?insi g h t f u l mo ment s ? , it is
rapid and involv e s a comple t e reorga n i s a t i o n of concepts alrea dy acquired (?strong?
knowledge restructuring). This theory of know l e d g e acqui s i t i o n has impor t a n t impli c a t i o n s
for my own study, and I use it as a basis for my theoret i c a l frame wo r k (see section 2.8.2).
Learni n g in museums and scienc e centre s ha s the potentia l for both weak and strong
knowledge reorganization, due to the way in which the knowled g e is present e d , both using
innova t i v e presen t a t i o n method s (such as in a planeta r i u m dome) and as hands-o n ,
inter a c t i v e exhib i t s . It is impor t a n t to note th at the human const r u ct i vi st s are reali st s , at
least to the exten t that Osbor n e (1996 ) defin e s the ?modes t reali s t ? posit i o n . In his critiq ue
Osborne shows how the principal strength of co nst r u ct i vi s m is in its use as a pedagogical
13
method , taking into account learne r s ? prior knowledge and treating learn e r s as activ e
particip a n t s in the cons truction of knowl e dge. Osborne maintains however, that
const r u ct i vi sm fails to provi d e any mecha n i s m or proce sse s to assi s t learne r s to judge
whether one conception or theory is bett er than another, and move beyond a common-
sen s e view (whic h in the case of much of scien c e is not the scientifically-accepted
viewpoi n t ) . Osborn e sugges t s th ere is a clear role for ?t elling, showing and seeing as
methods which enable the constru c t i o n of new knowledge? (Osborne, 1996 p. 66). He
advocate s that science educator s and resear c h e r s adopt a ?modes t reali s t ? epist e mol o g y ,
which accept s that there is an ontolog i c a l reality which scienti s ts investigate. A version of
that reali t y can be const r u ct e d by stude n t s bo th from their own exper i enc e s of the world
and from for ma l (and infor ma l ) instr u c t i o n .
In contr as t , ?soc i al ? cons t r u ct i vi s t s ha ve used the work of psychologists Lev
Vygots k y and Jerome Bruner to show that knowle d g e is built up by socia l inter a c t i o n
between individu a l s . Social construc t i v i s t s ar gue that knowled g e is created and shaped by
human discour s e , and that science educati o n is a process of en cultu r a t i o n whereb y
?novic e s are introdu c e d to a communi t y of know ledg e through discours e in the context of
releva n t tasks ? (Driv e r , Asoko , Leach , Morti m e r & Scott, 1994 p. 9). Recen t devel o p me n t s
relate d to the social constr u c t i v i s t paradigm are the notions of situated cognition, border
crossin g and world views.
Situat e d learn i n g or cognit i o n (Brow n , Colli n s & Duguid , 1989; Lave & Wenger ,
1991) refers to knowledge being shared or distributed across physical, social and
psychological contexts. Lave and Wenger have examine d how learner s can act like
apprentices, participating and increasingly taking on critical tasks of their master s in
authenti c situatio n s . Aspects of situated lear ning are relevant for my study, in that when
visiting Hartebeesthoek Radio Astrono my Obs e rva t o r y , student s are seeing an authent i c
site of science investigation. However, for vis itor s to become apprent i c e s in the sense used
by Lave and Wenger, they would need a mo re prolonge d engageme n t with the science
centr e and assoc i a t e d obser v a t or y than a single visit .
Aikenh e a d and his collab o r a t o r s (Aik enhe a d , 1996, 2000; Aikenhea d & Jegede,
1999) take a differ e n t appro a c h to constr u c t i v i s m: they postulat e that learning science
involves students crossing cultur a l borders from their own subc ulture to that of (what is
curre nt l y predo mi n a n t l y Weste r n ) scien ce . They postu l at e that the cross i n g of these
borde r s can be smoot h or hazar d o u s . Stude n t s in the latter categ o r y a void assimi l a t i o n into
14
the ?scho ol scien ce ? subcu l t ur e , and either fail or pass scien ce cours e s without true
compre h e n s i o n of the scienc e involv e d . Agai n , the concep t of border cross i n g has some
relevan c e to my study: when student s visit either of the study sites , th ey could be regarde d
as crossin g a border between their own subcult u r e and that of ?Western Modern Science?.
The world view hypothes i s (Cobern, 1991, 1996 ) and its Africa n varian t (Jeged e ,
1995; Jegede & Okebuko l a , 1991; Ogunnyi , 1996) suggest that concepts covered in the
scienc e class r o o m will be assimi l a t e d into a learne r ? s belief system only if it corresp o n d s
with his or her world view. Althoug h this idea mi ght be appea l i n g in a study such as mine,
which incl ude s the influ e n c e of stude n t s ? be liefs during the learni n g exper i e nc e , a small
number of research e r s (e.g. Dzama & Osbor ne, 1999; Rollnick, 2000) have questioned the
world view hypothe s i s . In a quantit a t i v e st udy, Dza ma and Osborne de monst r a t e that
tradi t i o na l belie f s and attit u d e s accou n t for only a small propor t i o n of the varian c e in
achiev e me n t in a test on electr i c ity. They suggest that other f actors such as the ?absence of
suppor t i v e enviro n me n t for seriou s scienc e learning? (Dzama & Osborne, 1999 p. 401) are
more likely to explai n succe s s in scienc e , or lack of it. Marissa Rollnick (2000) suggests
that situat e d cognit i o n (which at the time ha d gaine d grea t e r acce p t a n c e in the mathe ma t i c s
educa t i o n resea r c h commu n i t y ) might provi d e a ?more coherent view of culture? (p. 99)
whereb y the scienc e learne r become s a partic i pa n t in the socia l pract i c e of scien c e . There
are impli c a t i o n s here for my study : stude n t s visit i n g a scienc e centr e , espec i a l l y an
authen t i c conte x t such as a radio teles c o p e , may gain entry to the commu n i t y of scien c e
throug h such a visit. Howeve r , as in the case of Lave?s apprenti c e s h i p model, for such
entry to be gaine d it is likel y that ther e needs to be a sust ai ne d serie s of visits over a period
of time. My study did not examine such a situa ti o n , as in South Afri ca school visits to
scienc e centre s norma l l y take place only once in a year, due to financ i a l and curric u l ar
constra i n t s .
Cliff Malcolm and Busi Alant provide a deta iled, if somewha t one-sided, review of
scien c e and mathe ma t i c s educa t i on a l resea r c h in South Africa since the early- ni n e t i e s
(Mal c ol m & Alant , 2004 ) . Writ i n g from a cr itical paradigm and despite providin g the
reader with many examples, they disapprove of much of the Southern African science
educat i o n resear c h into learni n g and teachi n g ov er the past 15 years. They regard mu ch of
it as invol v i n g what they term ?mec h a n i s t i c ? and ?technicist? cognitive approaches, and are
more comp l i me n t a r y of the mathe ma t i c s educ a t i o n rese ar c h . The latter , they claim,
involves mo re appropriate expl or a t o r y method o l o g i e s to inves ti g a t e the complex i t y of the
15
social and politi c a l enviro n me n t . Malcol m and Alant ma int a i n , using examp l e s from
langu a g e , Afric a n worldvi e w theor y , teach e r ed ucat i o n and policy studie s , that there is a
need for emphasi s on critica l partic i p a t o r y stud ie s which addres s more closely the context
of South Afr i can society.
Broadly, my study is grounded in the theory of constructivism, and would likely be
rega r de d by Malc ol m and Alan t as a ?mech a n i s t i c cogni t i ve ? appro a c h , as it invol v e s trying
to determi n e what and how childre n learn over a relatively brie f time period. I would
howeve r , defend my approac h as being approp r i a t e for the context of my study into how
indivi d u a l s learn during a scien ce centr e visit . Exten s i ve re se a r c h has demons t r a t e d that, as
a theory of learni n g constr u c t i v i s m can explain how knowled g e is acquire d . In my study I
use human constructivism as descri b e d by Mintze s and Wa nder s e e (1998) and Mintze s et
al . (1997), and as used by Anderso n (1999) a nd Anderso n , Lucas, & Ginns (2003) in their
study of learnin g in a science centre in Austra lia. In addition, in order to encompa ss the
affect i v e aspect s of learni n g scienc e , whic h are not as clear l y iden t i f i e d in human
const r u ct i vi sm , I use a variat i o n of the Conce p t u a l Change Model (CCM) , origi na l l y
develo p e d by Strike and Posner (1985) . Alsop & Watts (1997) have taken David
Treagu s t ? s framew o r k of the CCM (Tyson, Venville, Harrison & Treagust, 1997), and
argue that infor mal learning co ntexts should take into accoun t issues of affect, conation
and self-es t e e m, and I have adopted their s uggesti o n s . Both the hum an constructivist and
conce p t u al chang e model posit i o ns are addr es s e d in more detai l in the theor et i c al
fra mework in sections 2.8.2 and 2.8.3.
This first part of my review has examin e d resea r c h into scien c e educa t i o n in
genera l and has identi f i e d how theory can in form the analys i s for my own study. As my
study investi g a t e s learnin g about astrono my , I believ e it import a n t to consid e r how
research into the learning of astronom y has been conduc t e d during the 20th Centur y and in
the early years of the new millenn i u m. Sec tion 2.3 examine s pertine n t researc h into
astro n o my educa t i o n .
2.3 Astronomy Education
A s a prefac e to this sectio n , I provid e a summar y of the peer-r e vi e w e d produ c t s of
empir i c a l resea r c h into lear ning about astronom y over the past 30 years (Tabl e 2.1). I
chose to focus on peer-reviewed articles for the summa r y as they are likel y to demon s t r at e
a greate r degre e of rigou r than other produ c t s such as conferen c e papers. However, Dunlop
16
(2000 ) provi d e s a useful revie w of additi o na l articl e s in confere n c e procee d i n g s and other
journa l s . The majorit y of studies have been in topic s relat e d to th e Earth-Sun-Moon syste m
such as the cause of day and night and the s easons (Table 2.1). Othe r popular topics have
been the Earth and the Moon phases while gravit y and the remain i n g topics have been the
subject of fe wer studies. Although I have include d nine gravity st udi e s in the table, mo st of
them were in the subjec t of classr o o m/ u n i v e r s i t y physi c s exper i me n t s , and not related to
astronomy. As Bailey and Slater (2003) noted in their review of as tronomy education, the
topics of current astron o m y , such as stars and the universe, have hardly featured as subjects
of study for educat i o n a l resear c h e r s , even t houg h teachi n g these topi c s has been espou s e d
by astron o me r s the ms e l v e s (e.g. Pasach o f f , 2001, 2002), althou g h not all astrono me r s
agree (Sadle r , 2001; 2002).
Table 2.1 List of peer-reviewed studies of astronomy education research since 1975
Astronomy Topic Total number of studies
D a y and night 16
Seaso n s 15
The Earth 13
Earth - S u n - Mo o n sy st e m 13
Phase s of the moon 13
Gravi t y 9
Stars and Sun 4
Solar sy stem 3
Attit u d e s 3
World v i e w s 3
Other 3
Size and scal e 1
Tota l 96
Jean Piage t made the first schol a r l y studi e s of how people, particu l a r l y childr e n , conce i v e
of astron o m i c a l phenome n a in the 1920s. In his two books The Child?s Conception of the
World a n d The Child?s Conception of Physical Causality he describ e s childre n ? s ideas
about a flat Earth and the cause of day and night, and refers to previous psycholo g i s t s?
work on simila r concep t i o n s (Piage t , 1929, 1930). Piaget identi f i e s three stages of
17
development of conceptions regarding the or igin of the sun and moon. The first stage
regards them as being made artificially by Go d or humans, the second stage ascribes them
as being partl y natur a l , while in the third st age they are regarde d as having nothin g to do
with human activ i t y . Piage t ? s work was both pioneering and very va lua b l e in prese n t i n g
childr e n ? s mental constr u c t s . Howeve r , subse quent research has shown that children?s
conceptions are dependent not only on age (i.e. cognitive devel opment), but also on
context and content (Bliss, 1995), and Piaget himself made no cl aims in using his research
to assist in student learning.
Wall (1973) summari s e s researc h related to astron o my educat i o n in the USA over
the period 1922 to 1972. He revi ewed 58 studies, of which 54 were doctoral and master?s
studi e s , and only 13 were publi s h e d in the rese arc h liter a t ur e. Writ t e n from the viewp o i n t
of astronomy as an earth scien ce, Wall produces a rather pede stri a n list of reports grouped
accor di n g to eleme n t a r y , high schoo l and colle ge level. The studies consist of experim e n t a l
proje c t s which compa r e diffe r e n t metho d s of in stru c t i o n or teachi n g resour c e s , as well as
surveys and develop me n t of curricu l a for as trono my teachi n g . The final two decades of
Wall?s revi e w was a great age of space explor a t i o n , and space scienc e featu r e s heavi l y in
the studies describ e d . Histori c a l l y the article is a useful reco rd of research conducted prior
to and during the era of the space race, a nd Wall concludes with a list of eight
recom me n d a t i o n s for furth e r resear ch which refle c t s the prior i t i e s of the time, such as ?the
effect i v e n e s s of audio- v i s u a l materi a l s on stud ent achieveme nt? and ?the effects of student
variabl e s (such as sex, IQ, ?etc.) on studen t achiev e me n t ? (Wall, 1973 p. 665).
Since Piaget ? s studie s , much of the res earc h in astrono my educati o n has mirrore d
the changes that have taken place in scienc e educati o n general l y over the past four
decad e s , summa r i s e d in secti o n 2.2. In the 1970s resea r c h e r s such as Nussba u m and Novak
(1976) , Nussba u m (1979) and Mali and Howe (1979) worked from what Eylon and Linn
(1988) would ident i f y as the ?devel o p me n t a l ? perspe c t i v e . Using clinic a l interv i e w
techni q ue s , they identi f i e d Piaget i a n constr u c ts held by children re garding the Earth in
space.
By the late 1980s the constr u c t i v i s t pr ogramme in science education was well
establi s h e d , and astrono m y e ducat i o n studie s focuse d on misconc e p t i o n s and concept u a l
change . Nume ro u s studie s of this nature we re conduct e d through o u t the last two decades of
the twenti eth centur y , both in develo p e d a nd develop i n g country co nt e xt s . These inclu d e d
those of Gunston e and White (1981), Klei n (1982), Baxter (1989; 1991), Vosniadou and
18
associates (Vosniadou, 1991; Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992, 1994), Sharp (1996), Fleer
(1997), Kikas (1998a; 1998b) and Sadler (1998). Examini n g differe n t concept i o n s held by
children over varying ages and across differen t cu lture s , these studies form part of the vast
number of miscon c e p t i o n studie s carrie d out within scien c e educa t i o n durin g this period .
Like those summari s e d in Table 2.1, most st udies concentrated on the relatively accessible
concep t s relate d to the Earth-S u n - M o o n system , such as the Earth in space, phase s of the
moon, ideas about day and night , and ideas about the seasons . Simila r resear c h projec t s
have been conduc t e d with pre-se r vi c e and in -se r v i c e teache r s , princ i p a l l y in the UK and
the USA (e.g. Atwood & Atwood, 1996; Barb a & Rubba, 1992; Summers & Mant, 1995).
Such studies show that the majority of teach ers, particul a r l y at the primary level, hold
misco n c e p t i o n s simil a r to those of the stude n t s they teach . All these studi e s could be
classifi e d as belongin g to the ?concep t - l e a r n i n g ? pers pec t i v e (Eylon & Linn, 1988).
Two papers provide very detaile d account s of pre-ser v i c e primar y teache r traine e s ?
concept i o n s . Parker and Heywood (1998) examin e pre- and in-ser v i c e primar y teache r
trainees? conceptions of night and day, the seasons and the moon. Wh at makes this paper
differe n t from others I have cite d are the impl i c at i o n s the auth or s ident i fy for the key
featu r e s of the learn i n g proce s s and the tr ainees ? Pedagogi c a l Content Knowledg e (PCK).
PCK (as discuss e d by Shulma n , 1986) refers to the abili t y of teach e r s to repre s e n t ideas
being taught in a way that makes them unders ta n d a b l e by students . It is particu l a r l y
impor t a n t for teache r s to be able to expla i n diffi c u l t three - d i me n s i o n a l conce p t s such as
those involving the Earth-Sun-Moon sy ste m. Anothe r key paper is by Trundle et al.
(2002) , who exami n e Ameri c a n pre-s e r vi c e pr imar y school teache r s ? concep t i o ns of the
phases of the moon before and af ter instru c t i o n . They cite pr evio u s studi e s carri e d out in
the USA, most of which involv e multip l e - c h o i c e items in the metho d o l o g y , but thems e l v e s
use inter vi ew s (toge t her with the manip u l a t i o n of model s ) to deter mi n e stude n t s ?
concepti o n s . They de mo nstr a t e that instruct i o n resul t s in stude n t s being much more likel y
to hold a scientifi c concepti o n on the cause of the moon phas e s.
The plethor a of studies on misconc e p t i o n s has contin u e d into the 21 st century, even
though there is now a substa n t i a l body of research which shows that both students and
teache r s hold belief s and miscon c e p t i o n s which ar e resi st a n t to change . Intere st i n g studie s
include those of Dunlop (2000), Trumpe r (2001a; 2001b), Comi ns (2001), Roald and
Mikalse n (2000; 2001) Dove (2002) and Agan (2004) . Other s , such as Diakid o y and
19
Kende o u (2001 ) , use instr u me n t s with su ch ambigu o u s mul tip l e choice answer s 2 that any
claims regard i n g post-i n s t r u c t i o n le arni n g are diffic u l t to evalua t e .
Althou g h my study did not set out to examin e miscon c e p t i o n s , the data I collec t e d
did demon s t r at e that sever a l of the misco n c e p t i o n s ident i fi e d in the liter at u r e hold for
South African students . This in itself is a fi nding , as very little researc h has been carried
out on this topic in Southern Africa. A typi c al misco n c e pt i o n held by the 12 to 15-year-old
studen t s in my study relate s to their unders t a n d i n g of gravit y. While 79% of students were
able to give a parti a l scien t i f i c al l y accep t a bl e defini t i o n of gravity , a third of the student s
speci fi c al l y state d prior to their visi t to the st udy site, that there is ?no gravity in space?
(Lellio t t , Rollnic k & Pendleb u r y , 2006). This mi sconc e p t i o n has been identif i e d by Borun
et al. (1993 ) in the USA, Bar et al. (1997) in Israe l and Sharm a et al. (2004) in Austr a l i a . It
is likel y to be widel y preva l e n t , give n the fr equency of i ma ges of astronauts ?floating? in
freefa l l on the Intern a t i o n a l Space Statio n or space shutt l e . Simil a r l y , 5 studen t s out of 34
(15%) though t that the phases of the Moon ar e caused by either th e Earth?s shadow or
someth i n g such as anothe r planet comi ng betwee n the Earth and the Moon. Again, these
are common misconc e p t i o n s found in the li terat u r e (e.g. Engestr ? m, 1991; Trundle et al .,
2002), showing that my own researc h mirror s some of the findin g s from elsewh e r e .
Comins has established a website (www.p h y s i c s . u ma i n e . e d u / n c o mi n s / mi s c o n . h t m) listin g
the astrono m y miscon c e p t i o n s identi f i e d in his book (Comi ns , 2001), a nd regularly updates
it. Baile y and Slate r (2003 ) note that sever al of the misconc e p t i o n s re ferred to by Comi ns
are not true miscon c e p t i o n s , but merel y factu al error s which ?m ight simp ly be correc t a b l e
with traditi o n a l lecture - b a s e d method s ? (Baile y & Slater, 2003 section 2.6). This may be
true for some of the fact ua l error s I identi f y in my own researc h , which is why I am more
inter e s t e d in how students learn about astronomy rather than what they learn . For examp l e
in Chapter 7 I show that two students learnt abou t sunspot s ; Nonkulu l e k o just reme mb e r e d
that there are black spots on the Sun which sh e did not discus s furthe r . Neo develo p e d an
understanding, albeit flawed, about the spot s, their relati v e size and their relati v e
tempe r a t u r e . These issue s are disc uss e d further in Chapter s 7 and 9.
In the late 1990s Albanese , Neves and Vicen tini (1997) carried out a critical review
of several interna t i o n a l l y publish e d researc h papers over the peri od 1976 to 1994 on the
2 e.g. Questio n 1 fro m their questio nn air e: ?Wh at do you think the earth look s lik e? (a) a squ are tray; (b) a
roun d tray; (c) a fish bowl; (d) a bask etb all; (e) a roun d lo af of bread ?. Optio n s (c), (d) or (e) cou ld all be
regar d ed ?corr ec t ? to some degr e e .
20
Earth and its place in the univer s e . Approa c h i n g the field from a ?histo r y of scienc e?
viewpo i n t , they conclu d e that while the resear c h is valid regardi n g childre n ? s concept i o n s
on the shape of the Earth , the resea r c h- q u e s t i o n i n g used did not relate the children ? s
empir i c a l obser v a t i o n s to abst ract models of the Earth-Sun system. They are partic u l a r l y
critical of Baxter (1989), Klein (1982) and Vosniad o u and Brewer (1994), stating
Apart from the obvious conclu s i o n that childre n may learn an abstrac t
model withou t questi o n i n g the re asons of its validity, no other
infor ma t i o n may be derive d from the resear c h , or implic a t i o n s drawn for
didact i c practi c e (Albane s e et al ., 1997 p. 586).
Althou g h Albane s e and colleag u e s are harsh in their criticism, a simila r argume n t could be
put forwar d for much of the altern a t i v e con cepti o n research in astronom y educatio n to the
presen t date. Out of the numero u s paper s on ch ildr e n ? s altern a t i v e conc ep t i o n s cited here,
less than a quarte r theori s e how the unders t a n d i n g of the altern a t i v e concep t i o n s can be
used to promot e impro v e d learn i n g . This is importa n t for my study, as it indicat e s the
relativ e l y atheor e t i c a l approa c h that has been taken to astr onomy learni n g , and the need for
theory to infor m learni n g , as I attempt to show in Chapters 6 to 9. Other authors (e.g.
Malcol m & Alant, 2004) have said much the sa me for the alter n a t i v e concept i o n researc h
which has been so preva l e n t in the scien c e educat i o n litera t u re ove r the past 25 years.
A study in a simila r contex t to mine was by Falc?o and collea g u e s , in a Brazil i a n
astro n o my museu m (Fa l c ? o et al., 2004). Focusing on four exhib it s depict i n g astron o mi c a l
cycles and using a modelling approach, the researchers found that different types of
teachi n g mo del s were of value in enabli n g visit or s to unders t a n d such cycles as day/ni g h t
and seasons. An interesting and relevant study which includ e d some fieldwo r k in South
Africa was a teachi n g interv e n t i o n conduct e d by Schur (1999) . Using an experimental
resear c h design , this study combin e d a cons tr u c t i v i s t and mediat e d learni n g experi e n c e
appro a c h . A teachi n g packa g e , the Exper i me n t a l Astrono my Curri c u l u m, consi s t e d of
engag i n g stude n t s in a ?thin k i n g journ e y to the moon? in order to enab le 14- to 15-yea r - o l d
Israel i studen t s to change their concep t i o n of the Earth. Althou g h this study examin e d the
effect of a teachi n g interv e n t i o n over an ex tende d perio d of time, its releva n c e for my
study is that it identifi e s st udents? understandings of grav ity, one of the foci of my
exami n a t i o n of stude n t s ? learn i n g . Recen t paper s on astro n om y educa t i on have appea r e d as
conferen c e presenta t i o n s in Southern Af rica (e.g. Clerk, 2006; Mosolo a n e & Stanto n ,
2005), and it is likely that this is a gr owth area for resear ch in the region.
21
A small number of studie s have examin e d indige n o u s knowle d g e in relati o n to
astrono mi c a l and everyda y phenome na (e.g. Ca meron, Rollnick & Doidge, 2005; Jegede &
Okebuko l a , 1991; Lemmer, Le mmer & Smit, 2003; Mohapatra, 1991). Such studies are
conduc t e d partly from the point of view of scient i f i c miscon c e p t i o n s , but relate studen t
understa n d i n g to culture, religi on and the worldview hypothesis. I decided not to take this
route in my own study , as I found in my pilot que stio n n a i r e that 12- to 15-year - o l d student s
in urban schoo l s did not tend to have stron g cultur a l tradi t i o ns assoc i a t e d with astro n om y .
Some of the most intere s t i n g report s of resear c h on learni n g about astro n o my do
not appear in the ?traditional? science educ ation journals. A newl y established on-line
journa l ?Astro n o my Educat i o n Re view? has begun to provide a va riety of papers within the
field (e.g. Agan, 2004) as well as a very usef ul review of astron o my educat i o n resear c h
over recent decade s (Baile y & Slater , 2003). Howe ver , from the point of view of relatin g
astrono my learnin g to theory, th ere are two key studies which appear to have gone largely
unnotic e d by researc h e r s . The first, by Enges t r ? m (1991 ) exami n e s a commo n
misconce p t i o n prevalen t among bot h children and adults (and reporte d extens i v e l y in the
literature) that the phases of the moon are cau sed by the Earth?s shadow. Engestr?m uses a
notion of ?synth e t i c stupi d i t y ? devel o p e d by Wagenschein to account for this
misconc e p t i o n . Wagens c h e i n sugges t s that as a result of misa pplied learning from either
the classro o m or textboo k s , people do not relate the model of the Earth- S u n - M o o n to the
real moon they see in the sky. Engest r ? m s uggest s that the textboo k diagrams bear no
relati o n s h i p to real scale, and are part of the cause of synth e t i c stupi d i t y . Such diagr a ms , as
well as the comple t e lack of proble ma t i s a t i o n of moon phas e s versus lu nar eclipse s , are the
principal culprits in the ?empty sentences? that people use when asked about moon phases
(Enges t r ? m, 1991). Severa l other au thor s (e.g. Ojala, 1992; Trundl e et al ., 2002;
Vosniado u , 1991) identify textbook s and their two-dime n s i o n a l diagrams as promotin g
miscon c e p t i o n s in astron o my . Engest r ? m howe ve r , then uses activi t y theory to propos e an
ambiti o u s new model for learni n g in school s . Build i n g on the Legi t i ma t e Periphe r al
Partici p a t i o n theory of Lave and We nger (1991) Enges t r ? m shows that in order to counter
misconc e p t i o n s such as the moon phases, a co mplet e l y revise d approa c h to learnin g is
necess a r y in school s . Engest r ? m? s work is re leva n t to my study in that the notion of
?synt h et i c stupi d i t y ? was ident i fi ed durin g the analysis of some of my data, and is
discus s e d in Chapte r 9.
22
A second study, based in Sweden (S chou l t z , S?lj? & Wyndha mn, 2001) is
impor t a n t as it quest i o n s the basis of one of the princ i p a l metho d s used by many
resear cher s in the fiel d: the inter view. Wh il e a large numb e r of studi e s in astro n o my
education have been based on multiple-choice tests and questionnair es (e.g. Dove, 2002;
Dunlop, 2000; Trumper, 2001a), seve ra l studie s have used interv iews to elicit views from
student s (e.g. Sharp, 1996; Vosniad o u & Br ewer, 1992, 1994). Schoultz and colleagues
introd u c e d a globe into the interview process, and f ound the respons e s of quite young
children were very different from those obt ained by other research ers. Based on these
responses, they argue that the presence of the globe allowed the subjec ts to conceptualise
their understa n d i n g very differen t l y than if the prompt had not been present. Schoultz et al.
go on to theor i s e that the inter v i ew is a s ituate d event, and the respons e s obtaine d by
researchers such as Vosniadou and colleague s do not represent ch ildren?s underlying
?menta l mo dels ? , but are merely reflec t i o n s of the natur e of the inter vi ew . Simil a r findi n g s
(witho u t theori s i n g about the event) have been noted by Trundl e et al. (2002), and it
appea r s that the avai l a b i l i t y of 3-dime n s i o n a l model s has a significant effect on
respon d e n t s ? thinki n g . While the socioc u l t u r a l approac h adopted by Schoult z and
collea g u e s appea r s to cast doubt on many of the findings of misconce p t i o n studies,
Vosniad o u has sought to defend her cogniti v e positi o n . In a recent paper (Vosni a d o u,
Skopel i t i & Ikospen k a t i , 2005) she replicates her previous work from the 1990s as well as
that of Schoul t z and collea g u e s . Her findin g s sugges t that only the older childr e n (7- to 10-
year-olds) can use the globe effectively, and th at somet i me s childr e n base thei r answe r s on
the globe and sometime s on their prior knowledg e . Further, the children do not know when
they are makin g incon s i s t e n t re sp o ns e s with respe c t to the gl obe and their prior knowle d g e .
Vosnia d o u mainta i n s that a combin a t i o n of cognit i ve and socio- c u l t u r a l appr oa c h e s is
import a n t in this type of resear c h , and that pur ely discursi v e analysis is not appropr i a t e . As
I will attem p t to show in Chapt e r s 7 to 9, my own resea rc h demon s t r a t e d that the
introduc t i o n of a model had a strong effect on a studen t ? s abili t y to expla i n the cause of
day and night. Like Vosnia d o u , I would argue that a combi n a t i o n of appr oa c h e s is the most
approp r i a t e way to explai n the intera c t i o n betwe e n inter v i ew e r and interv i e w e e when a
model is introdu c e d into the discuss i o n . These recent studie s by Engestr? m , Schoultz and
Vosniad o u would be classif i e d as being part of the c onstru c t i v i s t pr ogramme of
educational research (Erickson, 2000). I cons ider them key papers, as they provide
impor t a n t insig h t s into the use of model s in astron o my learni n g which many resear c h e r s
23
have decline d to use in their studies , basi ng their findin g s on ques t i o nna i r e s and writt e n
tests inste a d .
2.3.1 Research in Planetaria
I n contrast to the substan t i a l volume of astrono m y studi e s , there is limit e d recen t
liter a t u r e on resea r c h into learni n g at plane t a r i a . The modern planet arium was invented in
1920, and the earlier studie s can be found in Wa ll? s revie w , but are di fficu l t to obtain. An
accepte d techni q u e for determi n i n g the prevale n c e of resear c h in a partic ul a r field is to
make search e s throug h databa s e s of abstra c t s (Lucas , 1991; White, 1997). A search for the
terms ?plan e t a r i u m? ?astr o n o my? and ?educ a t i o n ? using key words from summari e s in the
ERIC and the NASA As trophysics Data System (ADS) 3 databases is summarised in Table
2.2. Unlike White?s method on science trends whic h present s the proport i o n s for the target
word per 10,000 article s , Table 2.2 shows simple counts for the terms of interes t , by
publica t i o n date, and grouped at 5-year interval s for more recent years.
Table 2.2 Numbers of articles rela ted to planetaria in databases
Term:
?planetarium
and learning?
ERIC
Term:
?planetarium and
education? ERIC
Term:
?planetarium and
education? ADS
Term:
?astronomy?
and
?education?
ERIC
Interval Number
of
abstracts
% No. of
abstracts
% No. of
abstracts
% No. of
abstracts
P r e - 1 9 7 0 1 3 5 5 2 2 47
1970 -7 9 17 47 47 51 5 5 >540
198 0 -8 4 7 19 25 27 2 2 330
198 5 -8 9 4 11 6 6.5 5 5 212
199 0 -9 4 5 14 6 6.5 17 18 176
199 5 -9 9 2 6 4 4 32 34.5 279
200 0 -0 4 0 0 0 0 30 32.5 97
Total
abstracts
36 100 93 100 93 100 1681+
3 This cons ists of 3 biblio gr a ph ic datab a s e s cover ing astr ono my, astr o ph ysic s and phys ic s based at Harva r d.
See http ://ad swww.h arvard . edu
24
Table 2.2 shows the relati v e l y limite d extent of the abstra c t s involv i n g planet a r i a in
educational journals over the pa st 30 years. The ERIC databa se shows a peak in the 1970s
and early 1980s, with only 10 to 20% of th e articles publishe d since 1990. The ADS
databases show a different trend, with over 80% of planetariu m- r e l a t e d abstr a c t s
?published? since 1990. However, it is importa nt to note that most of the planetarium-
r e l at e d abstr a c t s cited in the ADS datab a s e s are in fact abstr a c t s from the Ameri c a n
Astron o mi c a l Associ a t i o n meetin g s , and do not get published. In contrast, the ERIC
abstra c t s relate mainly to articl e s pub li s h e d in educa t i o n a l journal s , such as Journal of
Research in Science Teaching , and Science Education , as well as books, conference papers
and official documents. Also shown in Tabl e 2.2 is a summary of astronomy education-
related abstracts for the same time period. Although it shows a peak in the 1970s, probably
relat e d to the Apollo missi o n s , it does not show the same drop- o ff in resea rc h that is
indica t e d in the case of plan et a r i u m educa t i o n . This begs th e question : why has there been
so littl e educa t i o na l resea r c h carried out related to plane t a r i a since th e 1980s? I posed this
questio n to an Interne t listse r v e of about 1,200 planetarium directors and educators in 2003
and again in 2006. I had three repli e s in 2003 and seven in 2006. A gene ral concern raised
by most respo n d e n t s was that in order to survi v e finan c i a l l y , plane t a r i a have to stress the
entertainment aspects of their shows rather than educatio n . Nume r ous planetaria have
closed over the past two decade s , and there is de bat e as to wheth e r this is due to the move
towar d s enter t ai n me n t and the attem p t to co mpe t e with I-MAX and Disne y - s t yl e theme
parks , or a genera l loss of publi c inter e s t . A very recen t examp l e is the Londo n
Planetarium which closed its doors as a planet arium in May 2006: the owners blame a lack
of inter e st by visit or s , while astro no me r s ident i fy the move towar d s enter t ai n me n t as the
reason for its demi se , citing other successful planetaria run by astrono me r s elsewhe r e
(Bale, 2006).
Riorda n (1991) provid e s a useful review , which includ e s a brief histor y of the
planet a r i u m as an educat i o n a l prese n t a t i o n and a summar y of research over a period of
about 30 years. In common with research in science educat ion described in section 2.2,
researc h into the effecti v e n e s s of the pl anetar i u m as a teaching tool was mainly
quanti t a t i v e , using experi me n t a l and quasi - e x p e r i me n t a l method s , during the 1960s and
1970s. By the 1980s, more participatory plan et a r i u m pr esen t a t i o n s were gaining in
popula r i t y , and althou g h some resear c h showed no signifi c a n t differe n c e s in learnin g
achie v e me n t , other studi e s demon s t r a t e d impr o v e d learni ng gains using a plane t a r i u m.
25
Riordan?s overall conclusion can be summe d up early in the re vie w , that ?the effec t i ve n e s s
of the planeta r i u m as a teachin g / l e a r n i n g device is yet undete rmined? (Riordan, 1991
p.19). Much of the researc h pres ented in the review shows c ontradictory results, and the
grea t majo r i t y focu s e s on the attai nme n t of behavi o u r a l object i v e s . Si nce Riordan?s review,
occas i o na l studi e s repor t i n g th e use of planetaria have been publishe d (e.g. Rusk, 2003;
Urke, 1993), but they do not re late directly to my study. Th ere have also been opinion
pieces relati n g planet a r i a to museum resear c h (Parke r , 1995) as well as the entert a i n me n t -
e d u c a t i o n debate (Brunell o , 1992).
Although the field of astronomy education rese arch has advanced since the days of
Piage t and Novak , I consid e r that it became some wh a t bogged down in miscon c e p t i o n
resear c h by the 1990s, with many studie s publis h e d into the 21 st centur y which have not
added to our understa n d i n g of the nature of learnin g . There is little doubt that if the classic
documen t a r y ?A Private Univers e ? (Pyrami d Film and Video 1988) was repeate d now,
very simila r result s would be obtai n e d . This short film showed graduating Harvard
stude n t s being quizz e d about astrono mi c a l ph enome n a such as the cause of the Moon
phases and the season s . These highl y train e d gradu a t e s demon s t r at e very little knowl e d g e
about common phenome na. Clearly, a different approach to learning about astronomy is
require d ; it may be that learnin g outside the classro o m has an importa n t part to play, and
sectio n 2.4 examin e s the role of informal learning in education.
2.4 Informal Learning
A s a mode of learn i n g , infor ma l educa t i o n is usual l y contr a s t e d with the terms ?forma l ?
and ?non formal?. According to Falk (Falk & Dierking, 2001) these terms, develo p e d by
resear c h er s in inter n at i on a l devel o pme n t , go back nearly 50 years and were later used by
the museum commun i t y to distin g u i s h betw een school-based learni ng and out-of-school
activi t i e s . Coombs and Ahmed (1974) provid e a distinc t i o n between the three terms, as
follo w s :
Formal education : the highly institut i o n a l i sed, chronologically graded
and hierar c hi c a l l y struct u r e d ?educa t i o n syste m? , spann i n g lower prima r y
school and the upper reaches of the univers i t y ? .
Non-formal education : any organiz e d , systema t i c , educati o n a l activit y
carri e d on outsi d e the forma l syste m to provide selected types of learning
to particu l a r subgrou p s in the popul ation, adults as well as children.
26
Informal education : the lifelo n g proces s by wh ich every person acquires
and accumul a t e s knowle d g e , skills , a ttitu d e s and insight s from daily
experi e n c e s and exposur e to the envir o n me n t at home, at work, at play;
from the exampl e and attitu d e s of the fa mily and friend s ; from travel ,
readin g newspa p e r s and books or by listeni n g to the radio or viewing
films or televi s i o n .
(Coombs & Ahmed , 1974 p. 8)
The category of non-forma l edu cation, although relevant to the concept of learning in
museu ms , seems to have falle n into disus e in the resear c h litera t u r e , where the princi p a l
distin c t i o n is now betwee n the terms for mal and informal . Wellingt o n (1990) distingu i s h e d
betwe e n the informa l learn i n g of field trips and the for mal learning of school (Table 2.3).
Table 2.3 Wellington?s (1990) cl assification of learning
Informal learning ? field tr ips Formal learning - school
V o l u n t a ry Co mpu l s o r y
Unstr u c t u r e d Struc t u r e d
Open- e n d e d Close - e n d e d
Many unin t e nd e d outc o mes Fewer unint e n d e d outco m e s
Non-asse ssed Asse ss ed
Learner-led T e a c h e r - l e d
Hofste i n and Rosenf e l d (1996) reject Wellin g t on ? s distin c t i o n as being too simpli s t i c and
creatin g a binary approa c h which does not refl e c t the true situa t i o n of reali t y . Inste ad
Hofste i n and Rosenf e l d prefer the ?hybri d ? ap proach of Crane (1994) which allows that
certain ?forma l ? aspects of learning can take place under infor ma l condi t i o n s , but that
informa l learni n g is essen t i a l l y an out-of - s c h o o l , unstr uctured, voluntary activity.
Falk (2001) identi f i e s di ffic u l t i e s with the term informal when it is appli e d to the
term learning . He mai nta i n s that ?there is no c onvin c i n g evide n c e that the fundame n t a l
processes of learning differ solely as a func tion of the physical se tting? (2001 p. 7), and
postu l a t e s that child r e n exper i e nc i n g a lectur e in a museu m audit o r i u m is no diffe r e n t from
experie n c i n g the same lecture in a school audito r i u m. He makes a similar point about
open- e n d e d disco v e r y learn i n g in the same two settin g s , and identi f i e s the social contex t
and a learner?s motivation as being more impo rtant. Falk and Dier king (2000) and Falk
(2001) have therefo r e argued that the term free-choice learning is more appropriate for
museu m setti n g s . The chara ct e ri s t i c s of this t ype of learnin g have b een ident i f i e d as being
non-seq u e n t i a l , self-pa c i n g , non-ass e s s e d , and of ten involvin g groups (Dierkin g & Martin,
27
1997). Althou g h there has been some consens us for the use of this term, partic i p a n t s at a
confer e n c e on free-c h o i c e learni n g in 1998 were di vided as to whether it should replac e the
more famil i a r and establ i s h e d term ?info r ma l learn i n g ? (Luke , Camp, Dierk i n g & Pearc e ,
2001). It is also intere s t i n g to note that recent issues of science edu cation journals (e.g. the
Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2003 and Science Education 2004) have devoted
issue s to scien c e learni ng in informal environments. For the purposes of my study, I will
use the two terms free-choice and informal l ea r ni n g inte r c han g e a b l y , as the term info r ma l
learni n g has a wide usage while the term free- choice is a useful expression which is likely
to gain increa s i n g curr e nc y in the futur e .
Most of the recen t resea r c h on infor ma l scien c e learni n g has been carri e d out in
museum enviro n me n t s , with a lesser (but increa sing) amount at science centres. Relatively
few studies have been execute d at either planet aria or observatory vi sit or s ? centr e s . At the
latter sites, Dierking and Mar tin?s (1997) characteristics of informal learning are less in
evidenc e . While non-sc h o o l vis its to a planeta r i u m are us ually social, volunta r y and non-
asse s s e d , school visits are usually compulso r y and may well be assessed in some ma nner.
Furth e r , the visit s to such insti t u t i o ns are us ually structured, sequentia l and at least partly
didact i c . Despit e these differ e n c e s , I would cont e n d that learni n g at planet a r i a and visito r s?
centres can indeed be classif i e d as infor ma l , on the basis that it is out-of- s c h o o l , and, that
parts of the programme have some aspects of free-c h o i c e , of being unstru c t u r e d , self-
pa c e d , explora t o r y and non-seq u e n t i a l .
Unlik e the astro n o my educa t i o n resea r c h de scribed in section 2.3, research into
informa l learn i n g has not mirror e d that of sc ience education so closely. Although research
until the 1970s was behav i o u r i s t in natur e (Hein, 1998; Rennie & McClaff e r t y , 1996), and
has more recen t l y embra c e d const r u c t i v i s m, there has been much less empha s i s on
misco n c e p t i o n resea r c h than in the broad e r science education community. Instead, we can
ident i fy the follo w i n g key theme s withi n infor ma l learni n g rese a r c h:
? E n t e r t a i n me n t & educat i o n
? S c i e n c e commu n i c a t i o n and scienc e liter a c y
? L e a r n i n g in museums and scienc e centr e s
A fourth theme, which does not strictl y invol ve researc h , include s issues relevant to
pract i t i o n e r s, such as evalu a t i o n and impac t studi e s . I now discu s s each of these theme s as
28
refl e c t e d in the litera t u re , with particul a r referenc e to learning , as it forms the key resear c h
questio n in my study.
2.5 Edutainment or Entercation?
T h e lame n t of numer o u s museu m schol a r s ove r the decad e s has been wheth e r the purpo s e
of museu ms and simil a r insti t u t i o n s shoul d be to amuse or educa t e the publi c (Falk &
Dierking, 2000; Lucas, 1991; Shortland, 1987). In her excellent analys is of the changing
museum, Li sa Roberts devote s a whole chapte r to the subjec t , and argues that is not a new
issue (Rober t s , 1997). In the early days of Ameri c a n mu seu ms throu g h to the early
twentie t h - c e n t u r y , the debate was around schol a r s h i p versus popula r i s a t i o n as mus eums
sought to become both profess i o n a l l y and comm e r c i a l l y viabl e . As the twentieth-century
progr e s se d , the issue was fairly clear - c u t , with ?scho l a r l y ? curat o r s on one side arguing that
muse u ms were prima r i l y impo r t a n t for thei r co lle ct i o n s and the rese arch that could be
carrie d out on them, while ?prog r e s s i v e ? educa t o r s on the other side mainta i n e d that such
collec t i o ns needed to be availa b l e for the upliftme nt and educati o n of the visitor s .
However by the 1970s, with the introdu c t i o n of audio- v i s u a l displ a y s , compu t e r
termi n a l s , theat r e , music and other featu r e s more associated with show business, the
argume n t had shifte d to ?enter t a i n me n t versu s educa t i o n? . Museu ms felt they were losin g
audien c e s to the leisur e indust r y (such as th eme parks) and respon d e d by trying to provid e
entert a i ni n g activ i t i es withi n the mu seu m to retai n their visit o r s . Museum ?puri s t s ? found
this unacce pt a b l e ; the depth of feeling is shown by Willia m Fagel y in 1973: ?the curat o r
shoul d not prosti t u t e his instit u t i o n by transf o r mi n g it into an amuse m e n t center full of ?fun
house? gimmic k s in an attempt to win the inte rest of all potential visitors? (in Roberts,
1997 p. 39). Interestingly, many educators in cre a s i n g l y found themse l v e s on the same
?side ? as the curat or s , tryin g to promo t e serio u s learni ng in the face of ?friv o l o u s ?
enter t a i n me n t .
As the field of ?visitor studies? develope d over the 1970s, resear ch began to show
that leisur e and play were motiv a t i ng facto r s for peopl e ? s visit s to muse u ms . Once at the
museu m, learn i n g could still take place , even if learn i n g was not ?cogn i t i v e gain? , as it had
tradi t i o na l l y been viewe d . Resea r c h into motiv at i o n and leisur e in museu m s has
demons t r a t e d that they are often precu r s o r s or partne r s in learni n g (Csiks z e n t mi h a l y i &
Hermans o n , 1995; Hood, 1980 in Roberts , 1997) . While some museu m educa t o r s have
embra c e d the devel o p me n t of enter t a i n me n t activi t i e s in museu ms , other s have resis t e d the
29
change s . Robert s sugges t s th at ?the vote is st ill out, however , on whether these
devel o p me n t s are for bette r or for worse ? (R obert s , 1997 p. 44). She not es that change s in
?auth o ri t y? withi n museu ms , with a shift towa rd s educat o r s and the pub lic (and away fro m
curat or s ) , as well as great e r accep t a n c e that exper i e nc e in museu ms is a wider notion than
mere cognit i v e gain, reflec t broade r change s in societ y , at least in developed countries.
The critici s ms by some , regardi n g ?frivol i t y ? and ?hands-on, minds-off?, have been
espec i a l l y sever e in scien c e centr e s as they have emerg e d over the last four decades as
separa t e instit u t i o n s from scienc e museums . Science centres have grown exponentially, at
the rate of thirty percen t per year, since th e opening of the Explorat o r i um in San Franci s c o
in 1969 (Beetle s t o n e , Johnso n , Quin & White, 1998). Instead of disp la y i n g artef a c t s ,
science centres focus on hands-on exhibits, ofte n inter a ct i ve, which attem p t to engag e and
educat e their visito r s (Renni e & McClaf f e r t y , 1996). Critici s ms involvi n g ?sloppy science ?
(Champa g n e , 1975) , ?scie n c e as simply play and innocen t enterta i n me n t ? (Shortl a n d , 1987
p. 213) and ?an endles s series of unconn e c t e d , entertai n i n g magical events? (Parkyn, 1993
p. 31) are just some of the dispara g i n g rema rks directed towards science centres. Although
written as opinion pieces and not researc h - b a s ed, such critiques have had considerable
influ e n c e over the years. As the body of resear c h in these insti t ut i o ns incre a se s , there is
begin n i n g to be accept a n c e that both enter t a i nme n t and educa t i o n have a role to play in
scienc e centre s and mus eums . Studie s such as those of Boisve r t & Slez, (1994), Silverma n
(1995), Falk and associat e s (Falk & Dier kin g , 2000; Falk, Mousso u r i & Coulson , 1998)
and Gilbe r t (2001 ) demon s t r a t e th at for many visitors , their visi t to a scienc e centr e is to
learn and also to have fun. In my own study I incl uded a strand of questioning regarding
the views of the student s on learnin g and fun. As will be demons t r a t e d in Chapte r 5, most
student s regarde d learnin g and fun as natural be dfel l o w s when partic i pa t i n g in a visi t away
from school . In an analys i s relati n g Dewey? s work to the museu m envir o n me n t , Ted
Ansbach e r identif i e d no conflic t between an enj oyab l e and an educati v e experie n c e ; he did
howeve r cautio n that ?an enjoya b l e experi e n c e can ?.. have negativ e outcome s and be a
mis-ed u c a t i v e experi e nc e ? (Ansba c h e r , 1998a ; Dewey, 1938). In my study I found no
evide n c e to suppo r t this claim, but the fact th at I worked with teenager s may mean that a
school visit experie n c e preclud e s such conflic t s : every studen t interv i e wed enjoyed at least
part of the visit, and each one of them learnt at least someth i n g from their experi e n c e .
30
In the public arena, the debate betwee n en tert a i n me n t and educa t i o n contin u e s . In
2003, I followe d a fascina t i n g discus s i o n thread on the ASTC listser v e 4 . Kurt Koll e r of the
Pacifi c Scien c e Cente r in Seatt l e , quoti n g Michae l Crigh t o n?s views on socie t y? s ?nee d ? to
be enterta i n e d , posed a questio n regardi n g th e relevanc e of scien c e centr e s in the new
centur y : ?What are the core va lues of science / t e c h n o l o g y / ma t h e ma t i c s that we would want
to deliver and how (well) do they interse c t with contem p o r a r y in terest s and cultural
needs?? The resulting discussion over the next few days demonst r a t e d that scienc e centre
practit i o n e r s have str ong feelings about how their instit u t i o ns compa r e with theme parks
such as those of the Disney Corporation. Th e central argumen t of the discuss i o n was that
while theme parks do entert a i n their visit or s very effecti v e l y , managin g to get them to
?suspe n d disbel i e f ? as part of the experi e n c e , scienc e centre s have a differ e n t mi ssio n ,
much more concer ne d with scienc e aware n es s and science processe s . The followin g
quotat i o n s demons t r a t e some of the tensi on s that science centre s grappl e with:
I?ve notic e d that Disne y has become a so rt of icon for science center folk
? for better or worse. ?..scie n c e cente r s and museu ms shoul d simpl y
avoid comp ari s o n with Disney and its ilk. ?.We?re not about fairy tales,
but we are about the amazing histor y of discover y , the uses of those
discov e r i e s , and the possib i lities inherent in thos e discoveries. (Lisa Jo
Rudy, www.lisarudy.com)
As far as I am concerned , if people l eave our exhi b i t s with a thirst (or
even an itch) to learn more about a subject , then we have provide d a
valuab l e servic e (read: releva n c e ) . (Wesle y Creel, Pink Palace Family
of Museu ms , Memph i s )
Say what you will about Disney they make money . We at scien c e
center s struggl e and strai n . ?.Bec a u s e the publi c has been condi t i o ne d to
be enterta i n e d , it has now become th e expecta t i o n that everyth i n g be
entertai n i n g . ?.If you don?t hop on the enterta i n me n t bandwag o n , you
won?t stay open. But how wonderfu l that science centers have truly
played a role in changi ng the way we teach and embrac e scien c e . (Marc i a
Hale, Discovery Center of Idaho)
The bad about Disne y : I think it boils down to one ?word? ?
eduta i n me n t . It assume s that anyt hing educational can?t possibly be
enjoyab l e , and tries to steer us in to some horrib l e moras s . ? I would
never say that science center s should n? t be entertai n i n g , only that we
should never assume that the science we prese n t is someh o w defic i e n t in
this area. (Jonah Cohen, Science Center of Connect i c u t )
4 The Asso c ia tio n of Scien c e -T e c hn o lo g y Cente r s is a worldw id e networ k of scien c e museu ms and related
institutions. Their emai l listse r ve can be acce ssed at www.isen-astc- l@home.ease.lsoft.com
31
It appear s that the ente rt a i n me n t vs. educat i o n debate is as strong as ever. While the issues
that face scienc e centr e s in South Afric a may not be quite the same as those in the USA,
they are broad l y simil a r : fundi n g and compe t i t i o n from ?ente r t a i n me n t ? centr e s such as
theme parks and shoppi n g malls. My own study does not addres s this deba te in great detail,
but as Falk and Dierking suggest, the rela tions h i p between educ ation and enjoyment
appea r s to be becomi n g more compl e x as leisu r e and lifel o ng lear n i n g activi t i e s incre a s e .
Although neither of these activities are as prevalent in S outh Africa as they are in the
develop e d world, this is likely to be a fruitful area for future research.
2.6 Science communication and science literacy
T h e r e is an increa s i ng l y exten s i v e litera t u re in a fiel d which combi n e s scien ce
communic a t i o n and science liter a c y in relat i o n to museu ms and science centres, though it
consists more of opinion pieces and conceptu al research than empi rical studies. Sc ience
commun i c a t i o n is a relati v e l y new field whic h dissemi n a t e s the process e s and product s of
scienc e to the genera l public . It include s popular science j ournals and books as well as
websites (Gregory & Miller, 1998). Scientific (o r science ) litera c y , a lthough it has a longer
histor y than scienc e co mmun i c a t i o n , is still a relativ e l y recent discipline. Shamos ( 1995)
suggest s that the concept of sc ient i f i c liter a c y devel o p e d in the 1950s as a rather vague
term to promo t e a goal of ?scie n c e for effec t i v e citize n s h i p ? (p. 82). After the launch of
Sputnik by the Sovie t Union in 1957, a cleare r goal for scient i f i c liter a c y became the actua l
understanding of science and technology, so that the USA could imple me n t schoo l
curric u l a in an attempt to catch up and overtake the Soviet Union.
Early attempts to define the field incl uded those of Conant (in Shamos, 1995) and
Shen (1975). Shen make s a distinct i o n between pr acti c a l scient i f i c lite racy, civic scientific
liter a c y and cultu r a l scie nti f i c literac y . Althoug h Shen has advocates from within the field
of infor mal learning (e.g. Lucas, 1983; Re nnie, 2001), both Durant (1993) and Shamos
(1995) are very clear that any definiti o n of scient i f i c litera c y n eeds to include the sense that
some degree of the understanding of scienc e shoul d be implic i t .
Duran t ? s class i fi c at i o n of scien t i fi c liter ac y ident i fi e s three areas :
? U n d e r s t a n d i n g as knowing a lot of science ,
? U n d e r s t a n d i n g as knowing how science works, and
? U n d e r s t a n d i n g as knowing how science really works.
32
While the first two are regarded as degree s of scie ntific literacy, Durant suggests that the
public needs ?a feel for the way th at the socia l syste m of scie n c e actua l l y works to deliv er
what is usuall y reliab l e knowle d g e about the na tura l world? (Duran t in Gregor y & Miller ,
1998 p. 91). Shamos (1995) provid e s a simila r categori s a t i o n as Durant, identify i n g
?dime n s i o n s ? of scien t i f i c liter a c y as level s of understanding. Di mension one consists of
cultural s c i e n t i f i c litera c y , simila r to the ?knowin g a lot of scie nce? of Durant, but merely
at the level of vocabu l a r y and jargon . Di me ns i o n two is functional scient i fi c litera cy , in
which the words and defi n i t i o ns of the first dime n s i o n can be used in a ?mean i n g fu l
discourse? regarding, for example, science arti cles in the popular pr ess. Sha mos? highest
level is ?true? scient i fi c liter ac y , in which scienc e pr oce s s e s and theor y are combi n e d with
the function a l dime nsio n to unde rstand the ?overall scientific enterprise?. Shamos suggests
that this dimension is only achieved by up to 5% of the population in the USA.
Helpful as Duran t ? s and Shamo s ? clas s i fic a t i o ns of scien t i fi c liter a c y are, neith er of
them is parti c u l ar l y appr o p r i at e for relat i n g to the outco me s of a visit to a scien ce centr e .
The natur e of learn i n g in scien c e centr e s is discuss e d in section 2.7, and althoug h there is
conside r a b l e eviden c e that learnin g does o ccur (e.g. Anders o n , Lucas, Ginns & Dierkin g ,
2000) , Renni e (2001 ) sugge s t s that ?a deep cogni t i ve under st a n d i n g of scien c e conc e p t s is
unlikel y to result from every scienc e centre visit? (p. 114). Both Lucas (1983) and, by
impli c a t i o n , Renni e ident i fy Shen? s analy s i s of scientif i c literacy as being appropri a t e for
museu ms . Shen (1975 ) ident i f i e s thr ee types of scient i f i c litera c y :
? P r a c t i c a l scient i fi c literac y , in which a person uses their scie nt i f i c and techni c a l
knowled g e to solve problems ,
? C i v i c scienti fi c liter a c y , in which a pers on?s knowledge of sc ienc e - r e l a t e d issues
can be brought to bear on society - r e l a t e d issues, and
? C u l t u r al scien t i fi c liter a cy , where b y the ach ie ve m e n t s of scienc e can be appre c i a t e d
(and possibl y critici s e d ) . This is clearly not the same as Sha mos? version of cultura l
scienti f i c literac y (know i n g a lot of science ) .
Lucas consid e r s that while museums could po ssibly contribute to a ll three areas, typica l
displa y s are most likely to develo p cultur a l sc ienti f i c liter ac y . It should be noted however ,
that Lucas conduc t e d no empiri cal work of his own, and hi s opinion piece has not brought
about researc h in this area.
33
In my own study, studen t s were asked que sti o n s relate d to their knowle d g e of
astron o my (see Chapte r 3 and Append i c e s B and C), as identif y i n g learnin g at the study
site was a key resea rc h issue . While the major i ty of these questions could be regarded as
being at Durant?s and Shamos? lowest level of scientif i c liter acy (knowing a lot of
scien ce ) , some quest i o n s dealt with scien ce in ter e s t and scienc e in the news. In additi o n,
the use of Perso n a l Meani n g Maps (PMMs , see 3.3.1 ) allowe d the stude n t s to expre s s ideas
that they regar d e d as being impor t a n t withi n astronomy . In this manner, aspects of Shen?s
cultur a l scien t i fi c liter a cy can be ident i fi e d in the findi n g s .
Rennie (2001) stresse s that most researc h suppor t s the idea that ?people [during a
scienc e centre visit] have a scienc e - r e l a t e d encou n t e r which enabl e s them to make more
sense , in a scient i fi c way, of thei r exper i ences?. (p. 114-115). This echoes the views of
Rudy and Creel from the ASTC listserv e . Re nnie identifies the significance of science
centr e s for scienc e commu n i c a t i on as follow s : as they prolif e r a t e they reach a larger
audien c e , and they assist to engage with adults whose sch ooling system has not created
scientif i c a l l y literate school-l e a v e r s . Howeve r , her contex t appear s to be develo p e d
count r i e s , where famil y and adult visit o r s to sc ien c e centr e s are likel y to be in the ma jor i t y .
In the conte x t of South Afric a , the bulk of visito r s are school partie s (Table 1.2), and
there f o r e the aims of scien c e centr e s for these vi sito r s are likely to be differe n t to those of
developed nations. Currently in South Africa there is wide spread concern regarding the
low number s of school leaver s who have part ic i p a t e d in a meanin g f u l experi e n c e of
scien ce and mathe ma t i c s at school , as well as achie v eme n t at this level (Tayl o r &
Vinjevo l d , 1999). The focus of school visits is therefo r e not only about ?the nature of the
scienti f i c enterpr i s e and the role society plays in it? (Rennie, 2001 p. 117), but also on
science content knowledg e , which appears to be downplayed in developed countries. For
this reason , my own study focus e d less on studen t attit u de s towar d s science and
astron o my , and more on the effect of the sc hool visit on cognit i ve learni n g that may or
may not have taken place . This is an area of c onsi d e r a bl e deba t e in the liter a t ur e , and it is
to learn i n g in museu ms and scien c e centre s to which we now turn.
2.7 Learning in museums and science centres
A s Braund & Reiss (2004) have stated, ?trying to define learni n g is an almos t impo s s i b l e
task? (p 4). At a na?ve level , a laype r s o n usin g a standard dictionary to define the term
would find an entry such as ? noun: acqui r e d knowl e d g e or skill , esp knowledge acquired
34
by study or educati o n ? (Allen, 2000). The word is laden with ideas of facts and memory,
probab l y due to its associa t i o n with school and exams. Alt hou g h na?ve, it is probabl y on
this premi s e that much of the resea r c h in the 1970s and 1980s in museums and scienc e
centre s appear s to show that little learni n g take s place (McCla f f e r t y , 1995; Uzzel, 1993).
Howeve r , by the follow i n g decade it was realis e d that the resea r c h me tho d o l o g i e s used,
parti c u l a r l y exper i me n t a l studi es measuring particular outcom e s were inappr o p r i a t e for the
museum enviro n me n t . Resear c h e r s such as Falk and Dierking (1992) suggested that
schola r s were misgui d e d in their search for na rrow l y - d e f i n e d learni n g object i v e s , and that
the learn i n g that was in fact takin g place was not being ident i fi e d .
If we take a broade r view of learni n g , as more than just an increa s e in knowle d g e , a
definit i o n such as the followi n g might be more appro p r i a t e :
Learnin g is an interna l change in a person ? the format i o n of new mental
associ a t i o n s or the potenti a l for new respons e s ? that comes about as a
result of experie n c e (Renni e , 2001 p. 112 after Woolfol k 1987)
In this case, ther e is refer e n c e to the ps ychological view of learnin g (?new mental
associ a t i o ns? ) as well as the f act that such assoc i a t i o n s are due to experience. However, for
the purpose s of my study, a richer and more el aborate view of lear ni n g is import a n t to
reflec t the relati v e l y comple x world outside the school enviro n me n t . Such a defini t i on
might be:
Learning is a process of active engage me n t with experie n c e . It is what
people do when they want to make se nse of the world. It may involve the
develop me n t or deepeni n g of skills, knowle d g e , unders t a n di n g ,
aware n e s s , value s , ideas and feelin g s or an increa se in the capaci t y to
reflec t . Effec t i v e learn i ng leads to ch ange , devel o p me n t and the desire to
learn more (Braund & Reiss, 2004 p. 5 after Campaig n for Learnin g )
Such an explana t i o n is very broad, capturi n g expe r i e nc e , meani n g makin g and feeli n gs , as
well as a range of more ?traditionally recogn ised? aspects of learning, such as knowledge
and skills . Simila r attemp t s at provid i n g a st ipula t i v e definit i o n of learnin g are made by
museu m resea r c h e r s . Allen (2002 ) , in her study of visit o r talk in an exhib i t i o n on Frogs ,
descri b e d a fra mew o r k for defini n g learni n g . This includ e d refere n c e to Bloom? s
taxono my , the use of a socioc u l t u r a l perspe c t i v e , a de-li nk i n g from for mal learni n g
asses s me n t , yet a relati ve l y narro w defi n i t i o n of learn i n g as ?disc u s si o n of the exhi b i t s and
the exhibi t i on? .
35
Intere s t i n g l y , in their book on muse um l earning Falk and Dierking (2000) do not
provide a definit i o n of learnin g . Instead , they st ress repea t e d l y that le arning is a series of
process e s depende n t on three context s , the pe rson a l , the socioc u l t u ral and the physical. I
elaborate on Falk and Dierki ng ? s contextu a l mode l of learning in se ction 2.8.1. Such a
broad, all-e n c o mpa s s i n g view of learni n g is howeve r not withou t its critic s within the
museum commu n i t y . Allen chose her relati v e l y narrow definition of learning so that she
should make stronger claims about learning as a response to the view ?Yes, visitors have
fun in mus eums , but what do they really learn? ? (Allen, 2002 p. 262). As a museum
pract i t i o n e r , Ted Ansbac h e r argue s that be cau se learni n g has multi p l e meani n g s , and is
interp r e t e d differ e n t l y by differ e n t people , we should avoid the term altogeth e r
(Ansbacher, 1998b). Instead, he pr opo s e s that we use the term outcomes of a visitor?s
exper i e n c e s in a museum , and identi f i e s a num ber of possib l e outco me categ o r i e s such as
?achie v e unders t a n d i n g ? , ?devel o p physic a l knowle d g e ? (a Piaget i a n term) and ?chang e
feelin g s or attitu d e s? (Ansba c h e r , 2002a) . Ansbache r ? s critique has been countere d by
Dierkin g and others who maintai n that while outco me s are a useful measu r e for expre s s i ng
what an indiv i d u a l has exper i e n c e d duri n g a museu m visi t , the term lear n i n g is still
appropri a t e . Dierking et al. (2002), citing eviden c e for learnin g in museums over the past
20 years and accept i n g that there are differ e n t views of the word learning , argu e that it is
an appro p ri a t e umbre l l a term as long as it is ?broadl y and clearly defined and emerge[ s ]
from the meani n g the visit o r makes of the exper i e n c e ? (p 2).
My study examin e s learning at two out-of-school sites. I have cited this exchange
of views in some detai l to demon s t r at e th ere is not consens u s within the mu seum
commu n i t y on what consti t ut e s learning . Howeve r , I conside r that to abandon the term
learning and instead use outcomes is not a progre s s i v e ste p. The fact that there are
differing understandings of ?learn i ng ? is in itsel f not a conv in c i n g argume n t that use of
anoth e r term will resul t in clari t y . For the purpo s e s of my study, I will theref o r e conti n u e to
refer to ?learn i n g ? , and use Braund & Reiss? s descr i pt i o n (2004 ) as a stipu l a t i v e defin i t i o n
of learni n g in my contex t .
Learning is a process of active engagement with experience.
In a visitors? centre (such as at HartRAO) there is ample oppor t unity for students to
engag e with exper i e n c e s made avail a b l e , such as water rockets , whisper dishes and other
small e r exhib i t s . In the planet a r i u m there is less opportunity to do so, although the unusual
setting and quality of the presenta t i o n can enabl e active engage me n t .
36
It may involve the development or deepening of skills, knowledge,
understanding, awareness, values, ideas and feelings
T h e focus of my study is on the deepen i n g of knowle d g e and unders t a n d i n g , and to a lesser
extent awaren e s s and ideas (of the solar system and univer s e ) . At this point I should clarif y
what I see as the differ e n c e betwee n knowle d g e and underst a n d i n g , at least within the
contex t of my study. In common usage, knowle d g e and unders t a n d i n g can be used
synonymous ly in the sense of a person?s awareness and comprehe nsion of an artefact such
as a house. There are also numer o u s situa t i o n s where they are used in slightly different
senses , for example whe r e a person knows what a television is but has no understanding of
how it works. Since Tennyson?s distinction between declarative knowledge (?knowledge
that?), procedural knowledge (?knowledge how ?) and contextu a l knowledg e (?knowle d g e
why, when and where?) researchers have used his frame w o r k as a basis for classifying
types of knowle d g e involv e d in learni ng (Tennyso n & Rasch, 1988; Wellingt o n , 1990).
Most scholar s would conside r that the most valuab l e form of knowle d g e is contex t u a l
where a learne r is able to explai n why so mething occurs. For example, contextual
knowled g e of the phases of the Moon would involv e not just that they occur (declarative)
or that they are due to sunlig h t falli ng on differing amounts of the Moon?s surface
(procedu r a l ) , but that the variab le sunlight is due to the orbit of the Moon around the Earth.
In this example , I am using contex t u a l knowledge in the same sense as understanding,
where a true underst a n d i n g of the Moon?s phases is synonymo u s with context u a l
knowledge. In this thesis , I will use the term knowledge to refer to Tennyso n ? s declara t i v e
and procedural knowledge and understanding to refer to an abili t y to expla i n fully a
phenome n o n at the contex t u a l level.
Effective learning leads to change, de velopment and the desire to learn
more
I n Chapt e r s 5 to 8, usi ng the post-v i s i t in terviews and Personal Meaning Maps, I will
demonst r a t e that student s have changed so me of their knowle d g e , unders t a n d i n g ideas and
feelings , and that some of them ha ve been motiv a t e d to learn more.
So far, this chapte r has review e d re searc h in science educati o n , astrono my
education and informal learning, and has identi fie d some key papers releva n t to my own
study. Althoug h previou s re sear c h has examine d what students learn there has been
relativ e l y little work done on how they learn in scien c e centr e s . The next secti o n shows
how I locate my research in a theore t i c a l framew o r k releva n t to informa l learni n g .
37
2.8 Theoretical Framework
2.8.1 The Contextual Model of Learning
P r i o r to the 1990s, the majorit y of museum resear c h was either based on behaviourist
theorie s (Hein, 1998) or was atheore t i c a l (Anders o n et al . , 2003). Scott Paris sugges t s that
the idios y n cr a t i c natur e of visit o rs ? museu m exper i e nc e s has been ?used as evidenc e that
no genera l i z a t i o n s can be made about what or how people learn? (Paris, 1999 p. 2). Over
the past 15 years relati v e l y few studie s have examin e d scienc e museum learni n g using a
theore t i c a l lens. Promi n e n t among those that have are John Falk and Lynn Dierking , who
have conduc t e d numero u s resear c h and evalua t i v e studie s in scienc e centre s and museums
since the 1980s . Their initi a l m odel of learn i n g in museu m s , the Inter ac t i v e Expe r i e n c e
Model (Falk & Dierking, 1992), proposed a fram e wor k for organisi n g how visitor learning
and behavio u r could be approac h e d . In the ne w century they recast the model into the
Contex t u a l Model of Learni n g (Falk & Di erkin g , 2000), a more detaile d and refined
approa c h which descri b e s how learni n g in museums involv e s the three overla p p i n g
context s of the persona l , the phys ical and the sociocul t u r a l .
38
Figure 2.1 The Contextual Model of Learning (Falk and Dierking 2000)
T h e Context u a l Model of Learnin g (CML) (Fig ure 2.1) helps researchers to design their
resear c h eithe r to fall withi n one of the thre e ma in contexts of lear ning, or integrate across
all three . In the origi n a l propo s a l for my study I had inten d e d to integrate all three contexts,
but John Falk, in comment on the researc h qu est i o n s in my propos a l advised that any
differen c e s I might find between indivi d u a l s in the study mi ght be obscur e d by too many
?varia b l es ? . As a result of th is advice, I chose the personal c ontext as being an appropriate
fra mewor k within which to base the resear c h , and concent r a t e d on student expecta t i o n ,
prior knowled g e , interes t s and beliefs as fact ors which may influence student learning.
Altho u g h the CML provi d e s a model into whic h differ e n t types of museum and science
centre learning can be fitted, and also provide s a holist i c way of exami n i n g such resea r c h,
it does not provid e a theore t i c a l frame wo r k for th e learni ng itself . This is an approp r i a t e
Interaction
T he Personal Context The Sociocultural Context
The Ph y sical Context
Motivation
Expectations
Prior Knowledge,
Interests and
Beliefs
Choice and
Control
Conversations:
Within groups of
peers,
Within families.
Facilitated
mediation by
others
Advance
organizers and
orientation
Design of
exhibits
Reinforcing
events &
experiences
after visit
Al l three
contexts
interact with
each other
and the
dimension of
time
39
point to revisit my researc h questio n s , as it is they which shape d the final choice of a
theoreti c a l framewor k . My fi rst quest i o n is as follo w s :
To what extent do students learn in th e proce s s of a visit to a plane t a r i u m
or the visitors ? centre of an astronomical observatory?
The emphasi s on learnin g by individ u a l s who part i c i p at e in the visi t to a scien c e cent r e
sugges t e d that some for m of concep t u a l ch ange theory might be appropri a t e . During my
literat u r e review for the researc h propos a l I found that David Anders o n had used human
const r u c t i vi sm as a theory on which to base his resea r c h in a scienc e centr e . Howev e r , his
study empha s i s e d the cogni t i ve side of learni n g and he placed heavy emphas i s on post-v i s i t
activ i t i e s carri e d out in the cl assr o o m after the studen t s return e d to school . My pilot studie s
had shown that many teacher s visiting the planetarium and HartRAO tended neither to
prepare their studen t s to visit the centre, nor follow up the vi sit afterwa r d s . This has also
been found in other studies through o u t the world (e.g. Gri ffin & Symi ngton, 1997;
Koosimi l e , 2004). Storks d i e c k stated ?acknow l e d g i n g the fact that teache r s tend to not
prepar e or follow - u p on field trips, out-of - s c h o o l learni n g enviro n me n t s could also provid e
experiences that are va luable without preparat i o n or follo w-up? (Storksdieck, 2004 p. iv). I
there f o r e conce n t r a t e d on the stude nt s ? exper i e nc e s of the visit rathe r than incor p ora t i ng
the teache r into the study . In the light of th is, the theor e t i c a l frame w o r k s that most
appeale d to me were those of huma n constr uc t i v i s m and the conceptu a l change model as
put forward by Alsop and Watts (1997) when studying info rma l learni n g . These are
discuss e d in the followi n g section s .
2.8.2 Human Constructivism
H u ma n const r u ct i vi s m (HC) is a variat i o n of individual constr uctivism developed by
Joseph Novak and his collaborators (Mintze s & Wanders e e , 1998; Mintzes et al ., 1997;
Novak, 1985, 1988). Combinin g Ausubel? s theo ry of meaningful learning with
episte mol o g i c a l princi p l e s of constr u c t i v i s m tha t were emer gi n g in the 1970s and 1980s,
Novak develope d a research programme and prac ti c a l tools (such as concep t mappin g ) that
assist e d stude n t s in a meta- a n a l y s i s of thei r own learni n g . In his analys i s of scienc e
learnin g Novak identif i e d eight principles of learning together with examp l e s relev a n t to
teachin g . While the first four principl e s were portraye d as being ?general l y agreed upon by
most researc h e r s in the field? (Novak, 1988 p. 82) , from the viewp o i n t of this thesi s it is
worth briefl y examin i n g these princi p l e s to see how they have been upheld by more recent
40
resear c h , and how they can be regarde d as be ing relevant to infor mal learning . The first
four princip l e s are as follows :
? C o n c e p t s are acquir e d early in life
? M i s c o n c e p t i o n s are acquire d early and are resist a n t to modifi c a t i o n
? P r i o r learni ng influ e n c e s new learni ng
? T h e brain?s infor ma t i o n process i n g capacit y is limited .
Since the late 1980s there has been consid e r a b l e further research evidence to confirm these
four princip l e s , notably the work of Driver and associates (e.g. Driver et al . , 1994),
resear c h into concept u a l change (e.g. Hewson & Hewson, 1992; Strike & Posner, 1992)
and neurolo g i c a l resear ch (e.g. Calvin, 1996).
Novak regard e d the remaini n g four princip l es as being more c ontroversial and still
open to confir ma t i o n or reject i o n by furthe r resear c h . Princi p l e 5 is ?Most knowledge is
store d hiera r c h i c a l l y ? , and is one of the prin c i p a l ratio n a l e s for the use of conce p t mappi n g :
that the ma ps thems e l v e s repre s e n t ?ment a l mo de l s ? whic h exis t in a simi l a r form in the
brain. While some propon e n t s of concep t mapping support this not ion (e.g. Mintzes et al .,
1997; Pearsall, Skipper & Mintzes, 1997), othe rs are mor e circums p e c t (e.g. McClur e ,
Sonak & Suen, 1999), and still others are cr itica l (e.g. Kagan, 1990). From the point of
view of informa l learni n g , a sma ll number of studie s (e.g. Anders o n et al ., 2003; Anderson
et al ., 2000) have successfully used concept mappin g to determi n e the develop me n t of
students ? understa n d i n g of con c e p t s as a resul t of a visit to a scienc e cent re. Subsequent
resea r c h there f o r e , while is has not entir e l y di sca r d e d princ i p l e 5, has also not confi r me d it,
except as a heuristic method whic h appears to be quite valuable in research about learning.
Princ i p l e 6 is ?Learn e r s are seldom consc i o u s of their cogniti v e process e s ? and relates to
Flavel l ? s work on metaco g n i t i o n (Flav e l l , 1976) . Research studies over the last 15 years
have generall y confirme d this notion (e.g. Adey & Shayer , 1994) and many interventions
now aim to make learners consciou s of their own learning in order to impro v e th e learning
that takes place. In informa l learni n g this is usually difficul t to do in a museum or science
centre setti ng . Howev e r , it has b een carri e d out in studi e s relat e d to the public awaren e s s of
scien c e , and ?maki n g learn e r s aware of their own learni n g ? has proved to be a useful
techniq u e in some studies (e.g. Alsop, 2000; Alsop & Watts, 1997). Principles 7 and 8
have also gained suppor t from resear c h since 1988. Princip l e 7: ?Episte mo l o g i c a l
commit me n t s of studen t s influe n c e learni n g ? has been exami ne d from the point of view of
41
the Nature of Science (e.g. Lederman, Abd- El - K h a l i c k , Bell & Schwar t z , 2002) as well as
concept u a l change researc h (e.g. Tyson et al . , 1997) and also by Steve Alsop in the area of
informa l scienc e learni n g (Alsop & Watts , 1997). Accordin g to evidence presente d by
Weinbu r g h in her extens i v e review of attitud e s toward s scienc e (Weinb u r g h , 1995),
Principle 8 ?Thinking, feeling and acting are integra t e d ? had been researc h e d extens i v e l y
prior to Novak?s paper and has formed an importa n t compone n t of underst a n d i n g learnin g
in scienc e centr e s (e.g. Jarvi s & Pell, 2005; Rennie & McClafferty, 1996).
Since his 1988 work, Novak and his associa t e s have further elaborated huma n
constr u c t i v i s m and its asso ciat e d pedagogi c a l procedur es of concept mapping, vee
diagrams and semanti c network s (Mintze s et al ., 1997). This view of learning is
summar i s e d in Figure 2.2, and demons t r a t e s th e relati o ns h i p of four cognit i ve proce s s e s
from meani n g f u l learn i n g : subsu mp t i o n , supe rordinate learning, progr ess i v e differen t i a t i o n
and integra t i v e reconci l i a t i o n . I describ e each of these main proce s s e s as I use them in
subsequ e n t analysi s .
42
Figure 2.2 Concept Map of Human Constr uctivism (after Mintzes and Wandersee 1998)
2.8.2.1 Subsumption
I n his theory of meani ngf u l learning , Aus ube l ? s origin a l (1968) and revised (Ausubel,
Novak & Hanesia n , 1978) explan a t i o n of subs ump t i o n refers to ?the process of linking
new infor ma t i o n to pre-ex i st i n g segmen t s of cognit i v e struct u r e ? (1978 p. 58). The
impor t a n t aspec t is that new meani n g s refle c t a subordinate relationship to an existing
cognit i v e config u r a t i o n . He identi f ied two types of subsumption: derivative subsumption
and correlative subsumption . In derivati v e subsumpt i o n , ne w material is understood as a
specifi c example of, or is illu strative of, a previously learne d proposition. For example that
the colours scarlet and lavende r are names for colou r s , altho u g h they are muc h less
common than red or purple . In correl a t i v e su bsump t i o n new materi a l is an elabo r a t i o n ,
modifica t i o n or extensio n of previous l y le arned knowledge. Although ?it is incorporated
by ?. more inclus i v e subsume r s , ?? its me an ing cannot be adequate l y represen t e d by?
43
them (Ausu b e l et al., 1978 p. 59). For example understanding that displaying a country?s
flag is an act of patriotism.
Since these origin a l defini t i o n s , subseq u e n t schola r s have placed less emphas i s on
identif y i n g differe n t types of subsump t i o n , and have used the model as an expla n a t i o n of
the gaining of new specifi c concept s , linked to more genera l and inclu si ve conce p t s withi n
a perso n? s cogn i t i ve struc t u r e (Pear sa l l et al ., 1997). An example of subsumption would be
a studen t learni n g the names and cha r ac t e r i s t i c s of the nine plane t s of the solar syst e m, and
it is regar d ed as by far the most common of the four proce s s e s of meanin g f u l learni n g ,
involv i n g a ?weak? form of knowle d g e restru c t u r i n g in the brain, as well as an incremental
change in conceptual understanding.
2.8.2.2 Superordinate Learning
A u s u b e l et al. explai ned super o r d i n a t e learn i ng as being ?when one learns an inclus i v e
new proposi t i o n under which several establi s h e d ideas may be subsum e d ? (1978 p. 59).
Pearsa l l et al. regard supero r d i n a t e l earning as being less common in school science, and
regard it as ?a signif i c a n t and rapid shift in conceptu a l understanding? involving strong
knowled g e restruc t u r i n g (1997 p. 196). The example they give is very perti n e n t to my own
rese ar c h 5 : if an indiv i d u a l learn s th at scient i s t s have decide d that Pluto should no longer be
considered to be a planet (o n the basi s of revi s e d scient i fi c notio n s of the conce pt planet ) ,
the conceptual change required to make sense of this new information involves
supero r d i n a t e learni n g , result i ng in a student?s changed u nderstanding of the concept
planet.
2.8.2.3 Progressive Differentiation
Both subsumption and superordinate learning resul t in the clari fi ca t i o n of conce p t
meani n g s , and, accor d i ng to human const r u c t i vi s m, a person ? s knowl e dge base become s
more hierar c h i c a l and comple x . Such increa si ng structural complexity is refer r ed to as
progres s i v e differe n t i a t i o n (Mintze s et al . , 1997; Pearsa l l et al . , 1997). In his original
theory, Ausubel seems to link progressive di fferentiation specifically with subsumption,
where b y ?the proce s s of subsu mp t i o n ? leads to progressive differentiation of the
subsumi n g concep t or propos i t i o n ? (Ausub e l et al . , 1978 p. 124 emphasis in original ) .
5 It is also top ical. As I revised my thesis in Augu st 2006 the Intern ation al Astron o mical Union deb ated the
issue of Pluto as a plane t; a topic which made head lin e s inter n a tion a lly. Pluto was ?demo te d ? to become a
dwar f plan e t.
44
Howev e r later author s such as Pearsa l l and Mint zes and associa t e s indi cate that progressive
differ e n t i a t i o n occurs either throug h subsump t i o n or superor d i n a t e learni n g .
2.8.2.4 Integrative Reconciliation
T h i s occurs alongs i d e progre s s i v e differ e n t i a t i o n , as struc t u r a l compl e x i t y incre a s e s , and
refer s to ?the expli c i t delin e a t i o n of si milar i t i e s and di fferences among closely related
concep t s? (Pear s a l l et al., 1997 p. 196). The example given by these authors, again related
to astronom y , is when students learn about sim ilari t i e s and differen c e s in the atmos phe r e s
of differe n t planets , ?their knowledge structures become more interconnecte d, integrated
and cohesive? (p. 196). Again, while later authors regard it as a result of both subsumption
and supero r d i n a t e learni n g , Ausube l ? s origin a l theory refers to integrative reconciliation
occurr i n g as a result of superor d i n a t e learning, whereby new meanings arise and
confli c t i n g meanin g s become resolv e d .
One further cognitiv e process is referr e d to by Ausube l in his origin a l theor y of
meaning f u l learnin g alongsi d e that of supe ror d i n a t e learnin g , name ly combina t o r i a l
learni n g . In this type of lear ni n g , he sugges t e d that the new propos i t i o n s being learnt could
be classif i e d neither as subordi n a t e (as in s ubsumption) nor superordinate. However, this
type of learnin g has not been referr e d to by later author s , and has fallen into disuse.
I have shown how the core of Ausubel? s th eory of meaningful learning has been
assimi l a t e d into the notion of human constr u c t i v i s m , and how aspec t s of th e orig i na l theo r y
have been adapte d as furthe r evidenc e has become availa b l e . While me anin g f u l learni n g
has broadly influenced severa l resear c h e r s of out-of - s c h o o l learning (Falk & Dierking ,
1997; Orion, 1993), only Anderso n has used human constr u c t i v i s m as a basis for specifi c
empiri c a l study (Ander s o n , 1999; Anders o n et al . , 2003). In his study of a school visit to a
science centre he identifi e d seven categor i e s of knowled g e tr ansformation, three of which
he relate d direct l y to pr oces s e s descri b e d by human constr u c t i v i s m: subsump t i o n ,
progres s i v e differe n t i a t i o n and integrative reconcilia tion. However, Anderson?s
interpre t a t i o n is somewhat at variance w ith human constru c t i v i s m as propose d by Mintzes
et al. (1997, 1998). In his concept map of HC he indicate s a link showing that subsumpt i o n
result s in supero r d i n a t e learni n g (Ander s o n et al ., 2003 p. 180), yet he found no evidence
of superordinate learning in his study.
In my own study , the cogni t i ve aspec t s of learni n g were exami n e d from a human
constructivist viewpoint, taking into account both Novak?s and Mintzes? theories , as well
45
as Anderson?s interpretation and his own cat egories of ?knowledge transfo r ma t i o n ? . In
Chapt e r 6 I will show how these cogni t i ve proce s s e s can be applie d to the data collec t ed
during the fieldwor k in my study.
2.8.3 Conceptual Change
M y study howev e r , is not merel y a study in cogni t i o n . There is ample evide n c e to sugge st
that other proces s e s are taking place in people? s minds when they visit a scienc e centr e or
museum (e.g. Jarvi s & Pell, 2005; Short l a n d , 1987) . Return i n g to the en tert a i n me n t versu s
educatio n debate in section 2.5, the affectiv e dime nsion of learning has been stressed as
being impor t a n t by numero u s resea r c h e r s (Osb or n e , Simon & Colli n s , 2003) . While some
resear c h e r s have been concer n e d that ?having fun? in a scienc e centre do mi na t e s over real
learni n g , I have shown that there is consid e r a b l y evide n c e that th ey can both occur (e.g.
Falk & Dierkin g , 2000; Gilbert , 2001). Due to the under-theori sed nature of learning in
infor ma l envir o n me n t s , I found a pertin e n t conceptu a l fra mewor k that includes the
affect i v e dime ns i o n of learni n g elusiv e . Even t u al l y I disco v er e d it in an unexpec t e d place:
within the theory of concep tual change. In the 1980s Posn er and colleag u e s (Strik e &
Posner, 1985) developed the theory of conc eptual change, in which they show how
learne r s trans fo r m their conce pt i on s durin g th e proces s of learni n g , firstly by Piaget?s
assimilation, ?where a major concept u a l revi sion is not required? (p. 215) and
accommodation, in which the student replaces or re organises his or he r centra l conce p t s .
The same researc h e r s also describ e d how the features of students? ?conceptual ecology?
(cogn i t i v e resou r c e s) relat e to condi t i o n s n ecessary for accommoda t i o n to take place .
These condit i o n s are dissat i s f a c t i o n with the ex istin g concept i o n , intelli g i b i l i t y , plausibi l i t y
and fruitfu l n e s s of the new concept i o n . Critiqu e of this origina l theory resulte d in the
revisio n i s t theory of concept u a l change (Str ik e & Posner , 1992) to accoun t for the roles of
emoti o n and intui t i o n . Furth e r ?non cogni t i v e ? develo p me n t of the model was propos e d by
David Treagust and colleagu e s (Tyson et al ., 1997) in which they suggested a
multi d i me n s i o n a l inter pre t i v e frame w o r k . In this model they ident i fi e d three dime n s i o n s
which influe n c e d the concep t u a l knowle d g e of the learne r over time: episte m o l o g y ,
ontolo g y and social / a f f e c t i v e .
Alsop and Watts (1997), in th eir study of adults? informa l learning about radiation,
have adapte d the Treagu s t concep t ua l change m odel (CCM) to suit their resear c h conte x t .
Alsop and Watts? revisio n identif i e d four lens es (cognitive, affective, conative and self-
46
estee m) throu g h which to view the scienc e le arning taking place. Their research had shown
them that neithe r the revi se d CCM, nor even Treagust?s further modification was entirely
suita bl e for learni n g withi n an infor ma l cont e x t . The cogni t i ve lens ?reta i n e d the basic
elements of the Strike and Posner m odel? (Alsop & Watts, 1997 p. 638), name ly
intelligible , plausible and fruitful . The Strike and Posner mo del also included
dissatisfaction but Alsop and Watts omit it from thei r frame wo r k , possib l y becaus e in an
infor ma l envir o n me n t it is diffi c u l t to show th at the lear ne r is dissat i s fi ed with his or her
existing knowledg e .
For the affec t i v e lens, Alsop and Watts id enti f y three elemen t s of how learner s
engag e with the topic . These are germane , referrin g to personal relevanc e ; salient referr i ng
to the promi n e n c e of the topic in the learning environment; and palatable (how agreeabl e
the mater i al is). Alsop and Watts stre s s the im port a n t nature of the affecti v e lens and how
it can affect learn i n g . This can be in a positi v e way whereb y learn e r s are motiva t e d to
engage with the topic when they are intere s t e d in it. This has been demo ns t r a t e d nume ro u s
times in museu ms (e.g. Csiks z e n t mi h a l y i & Hermans o n , 1995; Ra me y- G a s s e r t , Wa lber g &
Walberg, 1994). It can also negatively aff ec t how learni n g occurs , whereby learners
disen g a g e with a topic they are not inte res t e d in (e.g. Jarv is & Pell, 2002, 2005).
Resear c h e r s such as Suzann e Hidi distin g ui s h betwe e n perso n a l inter es t , relat i n g to the
indivi d u a l and situat e d intere s t which relat e s to conte x t u a l facto r s in the envir on me nt
which promot e intere s t (Hidi & Harach i e w i c z , 2000). While it is diffic u l t to change the
long-t e r m prefer e n c e s of person a l interest, the context of a cl assroom or science centre can
manip u l a t e the envi r o nme n t to try to devel o p situa t i o n a l inter e s t . Both motiv a t i on and
situat i o n al inter e s t relat e to Shen? s no tio n of cultu r al scienc e liter a c y , where the
achiev e me n t s of scienc e can be recogn i s e d .
Alsop and Watts refe r to their third dime n s i o n as the ?cona t i v e? lens which relat es
to the ways in which a learne r mi ght take action to use the knowledg e in a practica l
manner. They suggest that it follows from Strike and Posner?s notion of fruitfulness , and
that the learne r then asks ?H ow can I use that knowled g e ? Does it empower me to act? ? (p.
639). Withi n this dimens i o n they identif y three element s : how actionable is the knowledge,
what control do they have over its use, and the extent to which they can trust their
understa n d i n g . The fourth lens (self-es t e e m) refer s to the learne r s ? own confidence, self-
image and autonomy within the framew o r k of scienc e l earni ng and relie s heavi l y on meta-
47
cognit i v e views of the student s ? learni n g . My interviews questions were not devised to
bring this out, so I did no t use it in my analys i s .
The Alsop and Watts model has many adva n t a g e s for a study such as mine. It
stresses the affectiv e nature of learning , but not at the expense of the cognitive, and
introduces a new component: the conative aspect . Howev e r , unlik e the human
const r u ct i vi st model I have descr i b e d, it was not ident i fi e d prior to the data colle ct i o n , and
therefo r e the questio n s asked of the student s were not tail or e d to ?suit ? the mode l . This has
both advantages and disadvantages: an advantag e is that questio n s asked of the student s
were not set up to in some way ?pr ove ? the mo del. A furthe r advant a g e is that the initia l
analys i s of the questi o n s was not biased by the model? s featur e s . A disadv a n t a g e is that
some questi o n s which might have been asked, in line with the chara ct er i s t i c s of the model
were not asked, and therefor e some aspects of the model may go unconf i r me d . Howeve r ,
by using this and a human constr u c t i v i s t framew o r k for the analys i s of indivi d u a l learni n g
(see Chapte r s 6 to 8) and using ?botto m up? or induc t i v e codin g to demon s t r a t e how the
students learnt as a group (see Chapter 5), I hope to show I have capture d the major i t y of
the learni n g that took place during the visit by the sample of student s in my study.
2.9 Summary
T h i s chapt e r has descri be d the resear c h relat e d to scien c e educa t i o n , astro n o my educa t i on
and informal learning. While the section on scienc e educa t i o n set the scene for my
resea r c h , findi n g s from both the other secti o n s of the revie w have a numbe r of impli c a t i o n s
for my study. First, my analys i s of the astronom y educatio n rese arch over the past 30 years
shows that the majori t y of st udies have examine d people ? s views of day and night, the
Earth-S u n - M o o n system and the phases of the Moon. Althou g h I includ e d questi o n s on
these in my interview questions, the literature suggested that other, less researched areas
were importa n t for a study such as mine. Hence, I inclu de d the topic s of gravity, stars, the
Sun, the Solar System and size and scale as ar eas for investigation, and identified Big Ideas
in astronomy as areas of focus.
Secondl y , much of the astrono my educat i o n research reported uses questionnaires
and tests to collec t data from subjec t s . Al so, much of the discus sion is under-theorised,
with lists of misconceptions being one of the princ i p al outco me s . Furt her analysis of the
findi n g s sugge s t s that the more intere s t i n g re sul t s whic h have impli c a t i on s for learnin g and
teachi n g are where resear c h e r s have used in ter v i e w s and intro d u c e d model s into the
48
discuss i o n . I therefo r e used a structu r e d interv i e w to collec t my data, and used a model of
the Earth- S u n - M o o n syste m for clarifi c a t i o n .
Thirdl y , very little resear c h about astron o m y has been carried out in South Africa.
Given the import a n c e the govern m e n t is placin g on astron o m y curren t l y (see Chapte r 1), it
is certainl y a worthwhi l e area of study. Related to this is the dearth of research in
planetaria over the past deca de; given the inconclu s i v e re sults of much of the early
experi me n t a l resear c h , it shoul d be an area worthy of furthe r study, especia l l y within an
interpr e t i v i s t paradig m.
Fourth l y , althou g h a conside r a b l e litera t u r e of studies of infor mal education has
been publi s h e d over the last 15 years , the va st major i t y has been withi n devel o p e d
count r i e s , mostl y in the Northe r n he mi s p h e r e . Very little empiri c a l resear c h relate d to
museu ms and scien c e centr e s has been condu c t e d or publish e d in South Africa. The very
differe n t priori t i e s of the S outh Africa n educat i o n system compar e d with those of
develo p e d countr i e s me an that resear c h in the contex t of a developing country will be a
contri b u t i o n to the liter atu r e .
Fifth l y , seve r a l studi e s have empha s i s e d the import a n c e of teache r s prepar i n g
studen t s for the visit and follow i n g up with activ i t i e s after the visit . However, throughout
the world this seems to happe n only to a limit e d extent, with most outings taking place as
?stand- a l o n e ? trips. Given this reality, I therefor e thoug h t it impor t a n t to deter mi n e how
much learnin g takes place in the visit al one, with no referenc e to teache r input.
Finall y , mu ch of the resear c h in museums and scienc e centre s elsewh e r e has been
under-t h e o r i s e d . Models for learnin g have b een put forward , but few have been tested
empir i c a l l y . Relat i v e l y few st udie s have examin e d how learni n g occur s in an informa l
enviro n me n t , and my study is an opport u n i t y to provide an empiric a l basis on which future
resea r c h can build in this area.
49
Chapter 3
I present a justification for the research design of the study, the instruments
used for data collection as well as a description of how data was collected. I
also discuss issues of ethics and credib ility, and the limitations inherent in the
study.
3 Research Design and Methodology
3.1 Introduction and Overview
In this chapter, I discuss the methodology wh ich underpins my empiri cal study, and show
how it relat e s to the theor e t i c a l frame w o r k and my resea r ch quest i o n s . Furth e r , I descr i be
the method s used in the study, the ration a l e for using such methods, the data collection
proces s , the select i o n of study sites and partic i p a n t s , the instru me n t s used to gather data,
the develop me n t and pilotin g of the instrume n t s , as well as issues of ethics, credibil i t y and
trustwo r t h i n e s s and the li mit a t i o n s of the study .
Over the perio d July to Decemb e r 2003 the Johan n e s b u r g Plane t a r i u m and
Hartebe e s t h o e k Radio Astrono my Observatory visitors? centre hosted nume rous visits by
school and other groups from grade R (kinde r g a r t e n ) to universi t y students . Prior to my
for mal data collection I attend ed five shows at the planetar ium and four visits by school
groups at the observ a t o r y , made field notes a nd collec t e d pilot data for the study. From 31
July to 7 Novembe r I observ e d and video/ a udio recorded seven sc ho o l s visiti n g the study
site s , and coll e ct e d data from 57 stude n t s ag ed 12 to 15 who completed Personal Meaning
Maps and whom I interviewed about their expe rience of the visit. Ov er the course of 2003
there were a few newswo r t h y items relat e d to astron o my and space scienc e that studen t s
might have been exposed to at school or in the media. The first of these was the Columbia
Space Shuttl e disast e r of 1 Februar y 2003, when the shuttle disint e gr a t e d on its re-entr y
into the Earth? s atmos p h e r e , ki llin g all seven crew me mber s . Later in the year (late August
2003), the planet Mars was at its close s t to Eart h in 50,000 years, appearing six times
large r and 85 times brigh t e r than norma l . Th is generat e d consid e r a b l e media attent i o n ,
includ i n g severa l miscon c e p t i o n s , such as the idea that the planet would be as big as the
Moon in the night sky. In Oc tober, China?s first astronaut was launched into space, an
event which again made it into the news headline s . A prior event, in Decemb e r 2002, was a
50
total eclip se of the Sun visib l e over the northe r n areas of S outh Africa , which was visible
as a partial eclipse in the Gauteng area. All these phenomen a caught the attention of at
least some of the stude n t s in my study, as th ey referred to them dur ing their intervie w s .
The conclu s i o n s and recomme n d a t i o n s from this study which I discuss in Chapter 9
are releva n t to presen t a t i o n s at both the study si tes and more genera l l y to scienc e centre s in
South Afric a but are limit e d to simil a r c ohort s of studen t s to those who were the
parti c i p a nt s in this study.
3.2 Methodology
3.2.1 Paradigms of Research
R e s e a r c h in much pure and appli e d scien c e follow s a fairl y consi s t e nt patte r n in which the
research e r sets up a hypothes i s which he or sh e then tests by empir i c a l means to deter mi n e
whethe r the premis e was correc t or not. Peru sal of science journal s and higher degree
these s shows that scienc e resea r c he r s do not norma ll y consid e r their own ontolog i c a l
assumpt i o n s . They regard their resea r c h as a means of discover i n g the nature of the real
world, and that the role of scie nc e resear c h is to uncover real truths. Re sea r c h into lear n i n g
(even if it is science learning) is usual l y rega rde d as bein g differ e n t from researc h in
science (Cohen & Manion, 1994). Educat i o n a l resear ch is normally regarded as a form of
social science, in which the position of the resear c h e r has a strong influe n c e on the claims
made (Henni n g , 2004). Most te xts on educational research methods (e.g. Opie, 2004;
Tobin, 2000) therefor e advise the research e r to make clear his or her own ontological and
epist e mol o g i c a l assumpt i o n s , and to expla i n care fully what paradigm of research he or she
is working with. I gave an account of myself as resea r c h e r in Chapt e r 1, which laid out my
views on teachin g and learnin g .
The three principa l paradigms or overarch i ng frameworks in social science research
are positi v i s t , inter p r e t i v i s t and critic a l (Henni n g , 2004). They are regar d e d as parad i g ms
in that they each have under l yi n g philo s o p h i c a l assumpt i o n s about how the world exists .
The posit i vi s t or norma t i v e paradi gm regar d s huma n behav i o u r as being subje c t to rules
and somethin g that can be investig a t e d us ing methods used in science, such as
experime n t a t i o n . In contras t , the interpr e t i v i s t framew o r k takes an anti-po s i t i v i s t stance ,
exami n e s huma n s as indivi d u a l s , uses desc ript i v e methods to find out about these
individ u a l s and interpr e t s meaning in the fi nding s . The critica l pa rad i g m attem p t s to
quest i o n how power relat i o ns and the polit ical nature of human society affects
51
relati o n s h i p s . Instea d of measur i n g or interp r e t i n g huma n be havi o u r , th e critica l framewo r k
works toward s decons t r u c t i n g and reconst r u c t i n g our world, usually involving some for m
of critic a l reflec t i o n and action . My study lies in the interp r e t i vi s t paradi g m, as althou g h
my own posit i o na l i t y has been influ e n c e d by the posit i vi sm of natur al scien ce , I belie ve
that the proces s of educat i o n a l researc h involve s working with people as indivi d u a l s . Such
persons are best studied in de pth rather than by using experiments and surveys, which may
only acquire data at the level of the co lle ct i v e rathe r than the indiv i d ua l .
Anothe r divisi o n in social sc ienc e resear c h is betwee n quantitative and qualitative
studies , which norma ll y (but not always ) follow from the paradi g m adopte d by the
research e r (Opie, 2004). Opie suggests that a positivistic approach take n by a researcher
will tend to lead to quanti t a t i v e resear c h techni q u e s being adopte d , while an anti-
p o s i t i vi st i c appro a c h will lead to quali t a t i v e metho d s . Chapt e r 2 descr i b e d that over the
past half- cent u r y , the posit i vi st i c para d i g m in scienc e educa t i o n has declin e d , and
interp r et i v i s t and critic al appro a c hes have beco me more do mi na nt (section 2.2). The
follow i n g sectio n lays out my ration a l e for using qualitat i v e methods.
3.2.2 A Case Study
S i n c e the 1970s, studie s of museum learni n g have adopted a variety of methods for
exami n i n g the exten t to which learn i n g takes place in the scien c e mu seu m and scien c e
centr e envir o n me n t s . In commo n with the rest of the scienc e educ ati o n field, since the
1990s, there has been a shift away from e xperi me n t a l and quasi- e x p e r i me n t a l method s
towar d s more inter p re t i v e , quali t a t i v e metho d s (Renn i e et al., 2003; Rennie &
McClaffe r t y , 1996). The principa l reaso n for this chang e in empha s i s withi n the wider
scienc e educat i o n commun i t y has be en the real i sa t i o n that soci a l and cont e x t u a l issue s play
a greater role in learning than had been previously t hough t . (Duit & Treagus t , 1998). Key
researc h e r s who have been influen t i a l in sh ift i n g the museu m resear c h commu n i t y towar d s
more natural i s t i c studies are John Falk and Lynn Dierkin g . They have carried out
numerou s studie s and reviews over the past 15 years (Dierk i n g & Falk, 1994; Falk &
Dierking, 1992; Falk & Dierki ng, 2000), as well as collaborated with many others (e.g.
Adelma n , Falk & James, 2000; Falk et al . , 1998) using a variety of qualitative (and
quanti t a t i v e ) experi me n t a l de signs which have added consid erably to our knowledge of
learni n g in the infor ma l envir o n me n t . Other mus e um resear c h e r s have experi me n t e d with
variou s visito r studie s techni q u e s such as time at exhibit s , pre- and post-vi s i t interv i e w s ,
52
convers a t i o n s between visitor s , and the like. As a result of these efforts over the past
decad e , speci a l issue s of leadi n g scienc e educat i on journa l s ha ve been devote d to informa l
learni n g (Inter n a t i o n a l Jour nal of Science Education 1991, Science Education 1997,
Journal of Research in Science T eaching 2003, and Science Education 2004)
demons t r a t i n g the variet y of natura l i s t i c ap proaches and data collection methods now
being used in the field.
In line with this tr end, I decide d that my resear c h study design should be along
qualit a t i v e , rather than quantit a t i v e lines. Accordin g to Tesch (1990) and Henning (2004),
a quali t at i ve appro ac h allow s researc h e r s to co ndu c t more detai l e d and in-de pt h studi e s .
Henni n g (2004 ) and Hollida y (2002 ) state that a true or ?progre s si v e ? qualit a t i v e study
does not use pre-de t e r mi n e d instru me n t s to captur e the data, but instea d relies upon
observa t i o n (withou t using an observa t i o n sche dule), artefact and document studies, and
intervi e w s (which may be semi -st r u c t u r e d ) . Hennin g (2004) is wary of qualita t i v e studie s
which use pre-d e t e r mi n e d instr u me n t s , such as observat i o n schedule s or questionnaires, as
?na?v e natura l i st i c? studi e s , and treat s th em as falli n g betwe e n the two parad i g ms of
posit i vi st and inter pr et i vi s t , captu ri ng neith er the numbe r s neede d for quant i t a t i v e work,
nor the thick descrip t i o n s require d for effecti v e qualita t i v e study. Othe r researchers dispute
this, for example Gorard and Taylor (2004) main t a i n that it is perfe c tly possible, and even
advisab l e , to combine qualita t i v e and quant itative methods, and produce research of high
quality . I decided that my own study should use predet e r mi n e d instr u me nts, but that these
would be devised during the pilot data collecti o n phase.
One of the featur e s of an ethnog r a p h i c qualit a t i v e resear c h design is that it involv e s
very small numbe r s of parti c i p a n t s , who ar e studied in great depth (e.g. Boaler , 1998;
Brodie, 2005; Wolcott, 1988). Accordin g l y , such a study should give rise to a detail e d
descri p t i o n and interp r e t a t i o n of the partici p a n t s ? ?lived experi e n ces? (Henning 2004).
Althou g h this has become an accept e d and effec tive way of carrying out research, I had to
consider the fact that the ?intervention? wh ich for ms part of my study is very short,
confined to the one to three hours that student s spend at the study site . In some cases there
may have been additi o n a l work done at school , but this was not the norm in my study. This
is in cont r a st to the sort of inter v e nt i o n whic h is more norma l l y studi e d in research projects
involving students and/or teachers. In these studie s (e.g. Moolla , 2003; Trundl e et al .,
2002) the inter v e nt i o n can consi s t of a speci a l teachin g project , which is tracked over a
period of weeks so that a detail e d pictur e of student s ? learnin g (and/o r beliefs, attitudes,
53
intere s t ) can be built up over a period of time. A study of info r ma l learn i n g such as mine
exami n e s the effec t of a singl e ?eve n t ? whic h is not necess a r i l y relate d to classr o o m
learni n g ; I found early on in the pilot phase of my study that most teach e r s takin g a class to
the planet a r i u m or Harteb e e s t h o e k Radio Astr o n o my Obser v a t o r y did not link the visit to
what they were teachi n g in class. In my cas e therefo r e , I conside r e d that it would be
impor t a n t to follo w the exper i e n c e of museu m resear c h e r s such as Allen (2002) , Falk et al.
(1998) and Paris and Mercer (2002) who used 49 pairs, 40 and 100 partici p a n t s
respecti v e l y , when conducti n g studies. Instead of acquiri n g limite d data in the form of a
questio n n a i r e or survey, such studies obtai n detai l e d infor ma t i o n by inter vi e w i ng the
particip a n t s . In this way, qualit a t i v e method s of analys i s can be applie d to the data, which
can also be analys e d using descri pt i v e statis t i c s to help confir m the findin g s .
My study followed a case study design (Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994). Althoug h I was
initia l l y intere s t e d in follow i n g Yin?s m odel of ?multi p l e ? case studie s , I found his
recom me n d a t i o n s for analy si s appro a c h t hose of quantitative research design. Yin
recomme n d s that theore t i c a l propo si t i o n s be se t up as part of initial research design
(simil a r to hypoth e s e s ) , which can be tested against the findings . Given my preferen c e for
a qualita t i v e resear c h design , with my researc h questi o n s attemp t i n g to find out the extent
of learning and how it occurs at science centres, I considered the setting up of propositions
to be prema t u r e . Instea d I worked with St ake?s notion of a collect i v e case study (Stake
1995) where a number of cases are selecte d in order to understa n d a particul a r situatio n
being studie d . Stake regard s th e collect i v e case study as a special case of an instr u me n t a l
case study , in which a case (e.g. a teache r ) is being studie d to unders t a n d some th i n g in
addition to the case itself (e.g. the way the teacher works with assessme nt). Stake then
recommen d s interpre t i v e methods of analys i s to unders t a n d mo re about the cases select e d ,
which may lead to limit e d gener a l i s a t i o n s . This , howeve r , is where great care needs to be
taken on the part of the researc h e r . General i s a t i o n s are usually made by research e r s using
quant i t a t i v e metho d s in their res ear c h , and even then only when very strict parame t e r s have
been set up in the resear c h design , such as randomi s a t i o n of the subjec t s and carefu l
atte nt i o n to validi t y and relia b i l i t y issues . Howeve r , Bassey ( 1999 ) introd u c e d the idea of
?fuzz y gene ra l i sa t i o ns ? into educat i on a l case study research. These generalising statements
are suggested by the results, and although the researcher cannot be certain that his or her
findin g s are comple t e l y valid or reliab l e , (s)h e can make such fuzzy generalisations so as
to gener a t e limit e d claims as the basis for fu ture resea r c h . Stake himse l f prefe r s to limit
54
case study resear c h to finding out as much as possib l e about the case or cases under study,
with the ?empha s i s on unders t a n d i n g the case itself ? (1995 p. 8), though he also accept s
that asser t i on s can resul t from the under s t a ndings, and possibly even the modi fica t i o n of
generali s a t i o n s .
As I will show in s ubsequent chapters, my own study gives a detailed look at both
what and how student s learn about astron o my in science centres, and fits with Stake?s
descri p t i o n of a collect i v e case study. In addi t i on , in Chapt er 9 I s how how some of my
findi n g s resul t in limit ed clai ms . These claims have implica t i o n s for the study sites and
student s who partici p a t e d in my study, as well as other scienc e centre s and student s more
general l y and therefo r e form fuz zy genera l i sa t i o n s based on my colle ct i v e case . My
collective case consisted of a total of 34 students from four schools who visited either the
Johannesburg Planetarium or Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory. The research
instru me n t s I used and how I selecte d the st udy sites and students are described in the
followi n g section s .
3.3 Research Instruments
T h e princi p a l data collec t i o n device s I used were Personal Meaning Maps drawn by
participants, field notes taken during observ a t i o n of the partici p a n t s during their visit to the
study site, and pre- and post-vi sit interviews with the part icipants using a structured
inter v i e w sched u l e . In a ddition, field notes were taken duri n g the visit s to the schoo l s , and
the class visits to the study sites were audi o-r e c o r d e d (planet a r i u m ) or video-r e c o r d e d
(HartRAO ) .
In the early stages of the study, I cons idered using questionnaires to elicit
infor ma t i o n from the partic i p a n t s , along the lines of ma ny resear c h e r s in the area of
astronomy education (e.g. Baxter, 1989; Jarm an & McAleese, 1996; Kikas, 1998b;
Lemmer et al . , 2003; Trumpe r , 2001a) . I develo p e d such a questi o n n a i r e informe d by the
literature (see Appendix A), and administered it on a pilot ba sis to school students visiting
the planet a r i u m and to approx i ma t e ly 90 students at two township 6 schools. The results of
this pilot survey demons t r a t e d that severa l of the questi ons were not properly understood
by the studen t s . Many studen t s left some of th e ?short answer ? questi o n s blank and guesse d
6 In South Africa, the term town s h ip usua lly refe r s to the (ofte n under d ev e lop e d) urban resid e n tial areas that,
under Apar th e id , were rese rv ed for non- wh ites (Afr ic a n s, Colou r ed s and Indian s ) who liv e d near or work ed
in areas that were designated ?wh ite-on ly? (W ik ip ed ia, see
http ://en . wik iped ia.org /wik i/Town sh ip_ %28 So u th _Africa%29 )
55
at what was expec t e d in other s . These resu lt s echoed the ?empty senten c e s ? referr e d to by
Wagenschein (in Engestr?m, 1993). It is highl y likel y that the stude n t s? abili t y to
underst a n d the questio n s (or lack thereof) had a part to play in their diffic u l t y with them.
Sever a l resea r c h e r s in South e r n Afric a have sh own how langu a g e issue s have a role to play
in learning. Rollnick and colleagues (Blo ck & Rollnick, 2003; Rollnick, 2000) have
investigated how second language learne r s acquir e the langua ge of science, while other
resear c h e r s such as Setati and colleag u e s (S etati, 2003; Setati, Ad le r , Reed & Bapoo, 2002)
have examined how code-switching and discou r s e - s pe c i fi c talk infl u e nc e the learn i n g and
teachi n g of mathe ma t i c s and scienc e . Langua g e was not a focus of my study, and I decide d
that the deepe r , probi n g natur e of inter vi e w s would be a better way of exploring students?
knowl e d g e and unders t a n d i n g of issues in basic astro n o my . In additi o n, it appear e d that in
doing a study based on questionnaires, I would be replica t i n g previo u s research such as
that critiqued in Chapter 2. Fo r these reasons I chose to use methods more appropr i a t e to
gatherin g data related to my researc h questi o n s , and decide d on a combinat i o n of Personal
Meaning Mapping and intervie w i n g .
3.3.1 Personal Meaning Mapping
Personal Meaning Mapping (PMM) is a techni que developed specif i ca l l y for muse u m
learnin g , in which a subject ? s knowled g e a nd views about a particu l a r subject are
invest i g a t e d prior to the subj ect enterin g the mus eum and ag ain after the visit (Falk , 2003) .
Speci fi c a l l y , PMM is carr i e d out in the follo w i n g manne r :
1. P r i o r to the visit to the museu m, the subje c t is given a sheet of paper, in which a
word or phrase is written in the centre. Th e subject is then asked to write or draw
anythi n g that comes to mind in relati o n to the word or phrase. This can be factual
infor ma t i o n , ideas , belie fs , or any other rela ted opinion s , and is written in a specifi c
colour on the paper (e.g. blue).
2. T h e inves t i ga t o r then has a short intervi e w with the subject , and, investi g a t e s the
ideas the subjec t has alread y writt e n on the paper, record in g the subject? s
elabo r a t i o n of their ideas in a different colour in k from the origina l (e.g. red)
3. A ft e r the visit , the subject is given their origina l paper, and asked to make changes
or addition s to what they have already writte n on the paper. Accordin g to Falk
(pers. comm.) and Luke (pers. comm.) , it is crucia l that the origin a l paper is given
back to the subje c t , rather than aski ng them to fill a new one. It ensur e s that they do
not feel that the investigat o r is ?wasti n g their time? by asking them to repeat what
they have already done, and it allows them to alter their origina l ideas. These
correcti o n s and addition s are made us ing another colour ink (e.g. green).
56
4. F i n a l l y , the investi g a t o r carri es out another intervie w , based on the alterat i o n s and
addition s carried out in step 3. The inve sti g a t o r writes these (again using the
subject? s own words) in a diffe r e n t colour ink (e.g. yellow ) .
A sa mple PMM is shown in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 A Personal Meaning Map constructed by Bhekiwe
T h e techni q u e is based on the concep t maps developed by Novak and collaborators in the
1980s (Novak & Gowin, 1984). In concept mappi n g , a subject is taught how to map out
their own understa n d i n g of concep t s on a sheet of paper, and relate concep t s to each other
with appropr i a t e connec t o r s . In the analys i s of concept mappin g , there is sometime s a
?corre c t ? conce p t map, drawn by an expert, against whic h the subject?s map can be
compar e d and scored . Much of the concept map analy si s that has been devel o p e d over the
past 20 years is based on this type of compar i s o n (McClu r e et al . , 1999) and it has proved a
useful techni q u e for both pedagog y and the study of concept u a l develo p me n t , especi a l l y at
the school and terti ar y educa t i o n leve l . There has been a number of variants of concept
mappi n g since the techn i q u e was first deve lop e d by Novak. Techniq u e s used by Morine-
D e r s h i me r (1993) and Leinhar d t and Gregg (2002) are probab l y the closes t to PMM. In a
57
study of concept u a l change , Morine - D e r s h i me r asked studen t teache r s to make a concept
map depicti n g their view of the importa nt compone n t s of teacher prepara t i o n by providi n g
the phrase ?teac h e r planni n g ? . Two semest e r s late r, the studen t s repeat e d the task, and then
compa r e d their post- c ou r s e map with their origina l map. Leinhar d t and Gregg used a
simil a r met ho d with pre-s e r v i c e teach e r s visiting a museum. Ot her mapping techniques
have been used in educat i o n a l resear c h , such as ?flow diagr ams ? (Davi d o w i t z & Rolln i c k ,
2005) and ?vee diagra ms ? (Trowb r i d g e & Wande r s e e , 1998).
Critiq ue s of concep t mappi n g have been made by Kagan (1990) and Ruiz-P r i mo
and Shavelso n (1996). Kagan noted that they were used to asse ss short-t e r m change rather
than long-t e r m gain and remark e d that studie s often compa r e d subjec t maps with a target
?mast e r ? map. Many studi e s made claims that the map reflect s an individ u a l ? s actual
cogniti v e structu r e , while Kagan conside r e d that the maps may reflec t their abili t y to
?reprod u c e the structu r e of th e discipline? (p 451) rather than show real changes in
stude n t s? cogni t i ve struc t u r e s . Ruiz- P r i mo a nd Shavels o n (1996) sounded warnings about
using concep t maps for assess me n t purpos e s , an d stressed the need for furt her research on
the relat i o n sh i p betwe e n the maps and stude nt s ? cogni t i ve sche ma . Apart from the fact that
I used PMMs to demons t r a t e short- t e r m rather than long-te r m gain, these critici s ms do not
apply to my study, as I used the ma ps principa lly as a basis for further questioning rather
than analys i n g their struct u r e .
One key differe n c e between many analyse s of concept mappin g and PMM is that
there is no ?corre c t ? map develo p e d at any stage, agains t which the PMM is scored . In fact
Falk (2003) maint a i n s that such a form of analysi s would be counter to the philosophy of
PMM in the context of museum learnin g . For Fal k, there is no ?correct? answer or series of
answe r s that a museu m visit or can be expec t e d to come up with in re lat i o n to their visit .
Unlike the school classro o m, or the univers i t y lecture, where the students would be
expec t e d to learn parti c ul a r sc ien t i fi c conce p t s or facts , the learn i n g which takes place in
museums is person a l , contex t - bound and idiosyncratic. A PMM is there f o r e an indiv i d u a l ? s
perso n a l const r u c t of whate v e r learn i n g took pl ace as a result of their visit . As Perso na l
Meaning Mapping is a relativ e l y new techniq u e , and has mainly been carried out by Falk
and collabo r a t o r s , no analysi s or evaluati o n of the techni que has yet been published. In
making use of the techniq u e , I comme nt on its usefuln e s s in Chapter 9.
In my study, the enviro n me n t for data colle ct i o n was quite differe n t to many studies
using PMM. Like Luke (1998), my data was collected in the school classrooms of the
58
select e d partic i p a n t s in the study. I initia l l y gained permis s i on of the school Principal and
releva n t class teache r s , and obtai n e d infor me d conse n t from the stude nt s and their paren t s
(see sectio n 3.5). I then addres s e d the student s in cla ss and explain e d that I am researc h i n g
their forthcoming visit to one of the study si tes. After handing out blue pens to each
student, I explained that I wanted them to write whatev e r they think about when seein g the
words in the centre of the sheet of paper. Befo re giving them the paper, I then showed an
examp l e on the chalk b oa r d , using the word ?Joh annesburg?. I asked th e class what things
came into their heads when they saw that wo rd on the middle of a piece of paper. Using
examp l e s fr om the class , I then wrote their sugge s t i o n s on the chalkb o a r d , linkin g the
words they sugges t e d to the centra l word ?J ohan n e s b u r g ? , or to words they have alread y
put forward).
Figure 3.2 Example of initial PMM drawn on chalkboard
Once I had answered questions, and considered that stude n t s had got the idea of the
technique, I would hand out the PMM sheet that I had prep ared in advance for the study.
The ?promp t ? words in the middl e of this sheet were ?spac e , stars and plane t s? . Falk
recomme n d s that thoroug h piloti n g of the promp t is necessary (Falk 2003), and I did this in
one of my pilot schools , using a combin a t i o n of words inclu d i n g space, Earth and stars
before decidin g on the final wording , whic h elicit e d the most fruitf u l respon s e s .
I then asked the stude n t s to write what they could tell me about these words . I stres se d the
follow i n g , that:
59
? E v e n if they were not sure about a parti c u l ar issue , they shoul d feel free to write about
it.
? T h i s was not a test.
? T h e y could use words in their home language if they wanted.
? T h e y could do drawings .
? T h e y could write about th eir feelin g and beliefs
I then gave the stude nt s time to comp l e t e the PMM. This varied from about 5 minutes, to a
maxi mu m of about 30 minutes . Most student s would complet e the map within 15 to 20
minut e s . In order to ensur e anony mi t y , I wrote a number on the PMM as each student
compl e t e d it, and compi l e d a class list with the studen t s ? name s and the PMM number s . I
could then cross refere nc e each studen t agai ns t their own PMM, but anyone seeing a map
would not be able to ident i fy which stude n t had compl e t e d it. As they compl e t e d their
PMMs, stude n t s hande d them to me. I then sele cte d which studen t s I wanted to intervi e w ,
as described in Section 3.4.2.
3.3.2 Interview Schedules
S e v e r a l resea r c h e r s in the area of both astron o my educat i o n (e.g. Summe r s & Mant, 1995)
and museum learni n g (Ander s o n et. al. 2000) ha ve found that interviewing subjects can
elici t more infor ma t i o n from them, as well as allowing probing, through which the salience
of the subject s ? belief s can be examine d mo re carefu l l y . In the light of this and my
exper i e n c e with pilot i ng a que stionnaire, I decided to de si g n a struc t u r e d inter v i e w
schedule which would allow me to probe student s ? thinkin g more deep ly, both prior to and
after their visit to the study site. The resul ti n g intervi e w schedul e s were piloted with a
small group of students in an independent school East of Johannesburg visiting the
Planetarium during August 2003. Further develo pme n t of the intervi e w schedu l e s result e d
in four diffe ri n g versio n s , two pre-vis i t a nd two post-visit, (Appendices B and C), each
tailored to the study site the studen t s were due to visit.
3.3.3 The pre-visit interview schedule
Each pre-visit interview schedule (Appendix B) is divided into four sections, A to D.
Section A, identic a l in both st udy site versions, is introdu c t o r y , dealing with informe d
conse n t and demog r a p h i c infor ma t i o n about th e interviewee. Section B, also common to
both version s , concern s the propos e d visit, and what the stude nt s expect from the visit.
60
Resea r c h exami n i n g the effec t of orien t i n g st uden t s regard i n g ?what to expect? during their
visit to a museum or science centre (Ande rson & Lucas, 1997; Griffin & Symi ngton, 1997;
Kubot a & Olstad , 1991) has shown that studen t s benef i t both cogni t i v e l y and attit u di na l l y
from such orien t a t i o n . The S ectio n B questi o n s were develo p e d using methods describe d in
such research .
The Sectio n C questi o n s diffe r accor d i n g to which study site is due to be visite d .
During the early months of the study prior to formal data co llection, I visited each study
site several times, observing groups of students as they particip a t e d in the ac tivities. I took
field notes during these visits, and also audi o- or video- r e c o r d e d the procee d i n g s . I then
analysed the astronomy content that each of th e study sites was aimi ng to impar t to their
visitor s , and identif i e d a number of key con cepts that a visitor to the study site was
exposed to. These concepts are shown in Ta ble 3.1, and are developed into Big Ideas in
astron o my in Chapte r 5.
Table 3.1 Key concepts in astronomy identified at each study site
Planetarium HartRAO
S t a r s and plane t s in night sky Sun and stars : si mil a r i t i e s and diffe r e n c e s
Solar sy stem: what it is, its shape Sun temp era t u r e , other sun facts
Sun and its movem e n t acro s s sky Sun and its movem e n t acro s s sky
Relat i v e size of the sun and moon Relat i v e size of the sun and moon
Stars: what they are, how far away Stars: what they are
Moon phas e s Moon phas e s
Satell i t e and satell i t e dish
Gravity , with probes
Astro n o my in the news Astro n o my in the news
S e c t i o n C of each pre-vi s i t interv i e w asks ques ti o n s relat e d to the content shown in Table
3.1, accordi n g to whether student s were visitin g the Planeta r i u m or HartRAO . For
example , questi o n C2 asked at the planeta r i um was ?Wha t is the sola r syst e m? What
[thing s ] does it consis t of? What shape is it? How do you know? ? Question C5 asked at
HartRAO was ?Stars at night look like pinprick s of li ght . Wh y? What are stars ? ?
Finall y , Sectio n D of each pre-vi s i t inte rvie w (common to both study sites) asks
questio n s relate d to student s ? intere s t s a nd attitud e s toward s sc hool, recreation and
astron o my , as well as studen t s ? belief s rega rding extra-terrestrial life, astrology and
61
religio n . Studies of peoples ? attitu d e s toward s phenome n a have been carried out by
psycho l o g i sts for decade s , and have tended to use quant i t a t i v e measur e s (Crawl e y &
Koballa, 1994; Osborne et al ., 2003). More recently, there ha s been interest in school
student s ? attitud e s towards va riou s aspect s of scienc e , includ i n g astron o my (Jarma n &
McAlee s e , 1996; Jarvi s & Pell, 2002, 2005). However, these studi e s have also been mainly
quantit a t i v e in design, and their instrume n t s were not helpful in my study. The questions in
Section D were adapted slightly over the course of the study, as my intervi e w i n g techni q u e
impro v e d . The intent i o n of the Secti o n D quest i o n s was to ident i fy wheth e r a stude n t ? s
attitud e s or interes t s could be related to his or her learnin g at the study site. The pre-vis i t
intervi e w schedul e was piloted in a priv ate mission school on the East side of
Johannes b u r g , and question s were revised on the basis of the responses by students.
3.3.4 The post-visit interview schedule
A ft e r the visit , stude n t s were asked questi o n s (see Appendi x C) relat e d to their visi t to the
study site, as well as a repeat of the content questions asked in the pre-vis i t intervi e w .
Section A questions, common to both study sites, were again relate d to informe d consen t
and identif i c a t i o n of the student . Accord i n g to Anderso n et. al. (2000), very little research
has been carri e d out on post- v i s i t activi t i e s carrie d out by teache r s who take groups of
studen t s on visits to scienc e centre s . The S ection B question s made a brief follow-u p on
whether the students knew where they had vi sited , and why. The Section C questio n s were
ident i c a l to those asked in the pre-v i s i t inte rvie w , and we re differen t for the two study
sites . Final l y , quest i o n s in Sectio n D relate d to their attit u d e s towards the visit, and
attempt e d to identi f y me mor i e s from the vi sit which could be construed as learning. In
severa l articl e s and chapte r s , Falk and Dierking (1992, 1997, 2000) have indicate d that it is
better to try and identif y learnin g not by asking ?What did you learn in the Science
Centre? ? (e.g. Cox-Petersen, Marsh, Kisiel & Melber, 2003) but instead by asking for
examples of aspects of the visit which interested stude nt s , or that they told to others . The
questions on learning in Section D draw upon me thods used by Falk and Dierkin g (1997).
3.3.5 Interviews
I condu c t e d each intervi e w at the school s vis ite d . After obtaini n g permis s i o n from the
Princi p a l and releva n t class teache r s , and arra nging for consent forms to be signed by the
studen t s and their parent s / g u a r d i a n s (see sectio n 3.5), I reques t ed the teacher to arrange a
room in whi ch I could interv i e w any selecte d studen t . The room varied accord i n g to the
62
school visited, but was usually an office or clas sroom not being used by others at the time.
The inter v i e w e e and I were ther efor e accorded privacy, and I wa s able to ask quest i o ns and
audio - re c o r d the inter vi ew . Inter v i ew s follo w e d a standa r d i s e d format , in which I would
first confi r m infor me d conse n t , and ask biographical questions to try and set the subj ec t at
ease. I would then go through the interview sc hedule from Section A to D, ending the
interv i e w with questi o ns on the subjec t s PMM th at they had previ o u s l y writt e n for me. At
the end of the intervie w , I would thank the stud en t , and reques t him or her to call the next
select e d stude n t to come to the room. All in terv i e w s were audio- r e c o r de d on to casset t e
tape, and transc r i b e d to a word-p r o c e s s o r file, which could th en be analysed.
3.4 Data Collection
3.4.1 Selection of the Study Sites
D e s p i t e Sout h Afric a ? s incre a s i n g promi n e n c e as a hub for astron o my and space scien c e ,
there are relati v el y few sites promo t i n g astro n om y educa t i on in the countr y . The main ones
include planeta r i u ms in Johanne s b u r g and Cape Town, the South African Astronomi cal
Observat o r y in Cape Town, the newly ope ned South African Large Telescope in
Sutherl a n d , the Boyden Observ a t o r y in Bloe mf o n t e i n and astron o my - r e l a t e d sectio n s of
museu ms and scien c e centr e s .
The logistic s of my study m eant that I prefer r e d to work in the provin c e based
around Johann e s b u r g and Pretor i a . Within this region , the number of sites that combin e
both astron o m y and informa l learn i n g was limite d . I could have chosen sites of intere s t for
amate u r astro n o me r s , such as the Obser v atory in Johannesbur g , or other private
observ a t o r i e s open to the public on a limite d ba sis . Howev e r , my princ i p a l inter es t was
combin i n g infor ma l learni n g with the school educati o n system, hence I needed to locate
sites which allow e d or encou r a g e d acces s for school groups . On this basis, one obviou s
choice was the Johanne s b u r g Planeta r i u m, located on the premi s e s of the Unive r s i t y of the
Witwatersrand, and run by the un ivers i t y as part of its science aw areness outreach
progra m me . Large number s of school groups vi sit the planetar i u m on a monthly basis, and
it appea r e d to be an ideal site to base my study. When I approa c h e d the Direct o r for
permis s i o n to use the planet a r i u m as one of my study sites, I was welcome d , and given
permi s s i o n , with the provi s o that I feed back the result s of my resear c h to the staff.
Originally conceived in 1956 as pa rt of the celeb r a tions for the 70 th anniversary of the
foundi n g of Johann e s b u r g , the planet a r i u m wa s transfe r r e d by the Ci ty Council to the
63
Univer s i t y of the Witwat e r s r a n d and opened in 1960, housing a recondit i o n e d star
project o r from Ha mburg , Germa ny (J ohann e s b u r g Planeta r i u m, 1999).
The disadvantage of the planetarium is that its educat i ve experi e nc e is in the form
of a present a t i o n only which, even if made inter a ct i v e by the prese n t er quest i o n i ng the
audie n c e , is a mainl y visua l and audit o r y experience. In looking fo r an additional out-of-
s c h o o l astro n o my exper i e n c e , I met an as tron o me r fr om the Harteb e e s t h o e k Radio
Astron o my Observ a t o r y . He descri b e d their science awareness programme and explained
that they encour a g e schoo l s to visit the tele s c ope and adjac e n t visit o r s? centr e . Since it is
locate d in Gauten g provin c e less than 60 km from Johanne s b u r g , HartRAO appeare d to be
an ideal addit i o na l site at which to base my study . HartR A O is an examp l e of a ?large
objec t with a small mu seu m attac h e d ? (Gre gor y & Miller, 1998 p. 204) similar to the
Jodre l l Bank Visit or Cent r e attac h e d to the radio teles c o p e in the UK (Chap l i n & Graham-
S mi t h , 1992). Gregor y and Miller consid e r such types of museum as typical of the later
20th century, as artefacts of science and technology whic h now concern themsel v e s
increasingly with both the ?cosmic and microsc opic?. This contrasts wi th previou s decades ,
in which the emphasi s was on relativ e l y small artefa c t s in large museu ms .
Situat e d in a hollow in the Magali e sb e r g hills West of Pretori a , HartRA O was built
in the early 1960s as a trackin g statio n for th e United States? NASA Apollo and associat e d
missio n s . Even in those early days, there was a for m of ?scienc e awaren e s s ? progra m m e
run by NASA, which included lectures to inte rested groups and visits by schools. The
facility was handed over to the South Afri ca n govern me n t in 1975, and was managed by
the Nationa l Institu t e of Telecom mu n i c a t i o n s Re se a r c h , a part of the Counc i l for Scien t i fi c
and Industr i a l Researc h . For the next few y ears, HartRAO accept ed one visit per month
from schoo l s and unive r s i t i e s . In 1988, respo n s i b i l i t y for the observ a t o r y was transf e r r e d to
the Foundation for Research and Development (now the NRF), and in 1990 a me mb er of
staff was recruited to spend 50% of her time on a science awareness programm e . The
facilit y is current l y ma nage d by the Nati ona l Researc h Foundat i o n (NRF) as a radio
telescop e , and has expanded its science awaren e s s progra m me consid e r a b l y. The
program me encour a g e s visits by schools , clubs and the public to learn about astron o my ,
space and the resear c h carrie d out using the radio teles co p e . In addit i o n , the scien c e
awarene s s staff (two full-ti me educato r s , under the guidance of the programme manager)
run teache r s ? worksh o p s and partic i p a t e in re levant science communication events in the
region. (Gaylard , undated)
64
A visit to the planeta r i u m typic a l l y invol v e s a 50 to 80 minute ?show? in which an
astron o my educat o r demons t r a t e s the sola r system, astron o mi c a l distan c e s and an
indicat i o n of the night sky constel l a t i o n s vi sib l e the same night. A visit to HartRA O
typica l l y lasts up to 4 hours, and entails intera c t ive activities such as water rockets, whisper
dishes and star spinnin g , and de monstrations of the solar system and the radio telescope. I
descri be the experi e n c e s of a student visiting each of the s ites in detail in Chapt e r 4.
3.4.2 Selection of the Participants
In the original research design for my study, I planne d to exam in e how both studen t s and
their teachers experie n c e d astron o mi c a l phenome n a at a scien ce cent r e . I felt this
import a n t , as much of the lite rature related to astronomy edu cation showed that teachers?
unders t a n d i n g of astron o mi c a l experiences is ofte n as limited as that of their students
(Summers & Mant, 1995; Trundle et al ., 2002) and it is unlikely that the situation in South
Africa is differe n t . As the re search proposal prog ressed, and the focus mo ved towards the
infor ma l learn i n g of astro n o my and ?muse u m lear ning?, the role of teac her s was less of a
priority , but I still consider e d it impor t a n t , as many stud ies have shown (e.g. Anderson &
Lucas, 1997; Griffi n & Symi ngt on, 1997; Storksdieck, 2004). However, once I began to
examine how school visits to my study sites we re being arranged, it be came apparent that
only in a very limited number of cases would it be possibl e to collec t data on teache r s , as
well as the stude n t s . This is becau s e in most insta nc e s , the vi sit being arranged was
unrela t e d to the actual teachi n g curren t l y ta king place in the school, and the accompan y i n g
teache r was often not teachi n g the subjec t of as tro n o my to the stude n t s parti c i p a t i n g in the
visit . I therefo r e decid e d that it was more appr o p r i at e to asses s the le arning of the students,
who were full partici p a n t s in every visit to a study site, rather than include the teacher s ,
who rarely participated in the study site activit i e s .
The select i o n of school s and grade level of the student s for the study was careful l y
consi d e r e d . Revie w s of museu m and scie nc e centre learni n g (F alk & Dierkin g , 2000;
Rennie & McClafferty, 1996) show that studies ha ve been made with participants across a
wide age range, from pre-sc hool to adults. Revi ew s of astron o my learni n g (Table 2.1)
show a si mila r wide range of partic i p a n t s , but includ e fewer adults , and larger number s at
the level of college and univers i t y student s (Bailey & Slater, 2003; Dunlop, 2000). I chose
grade s 7 to 9 (mainl y 13- to 15-yea r - o l d s ) for my study because these grades form the
Senior Phase of the General Educati o n a nd Training (GET) Band of South Africa?s new
65
Curric u l u m 2005. This curric u l u m was phased in from 1996 to repla c e the ?inte r i m core
syllab u s ? , in place since 1994. Grade 7 is the fi nal year of primary school , while (in most
schools ) grades 8 and 9 for m the first two y ears of high school, so my sa mple spanned the
primar y - s e c o n d a r y school border .
My origin a l intent i o n was to select school s princ i p a l l y from the publi c syste m of
school i n g in South Africa , as they form the bulk of the school s in South Africa , and any
finding s from the study would be most valuabl e if relevan t to them. Howeve r , having
chosen the two study sites as being ideal locations at wh ich astronom y and informal
learning are combined, and havi ng a limited time fo r data collec t i o n , I was restricted to
school s that had alread y plann e d to visit one of these two sites. In order to select school s , I
contac t e d each study site and obtai n e d lists of schoo l s with class e s in grade s 7 to 9 visiti n g .
I then approa c h e d the teache r s and princi p a l s in these school s to enquir e whethe r they
would allow me to conduct my research with students in their schools. This usually
entailed visiting the school, expl ai nin g my resear c h proj ec t , a nd leavi n g them with a set of
informa t i o n sheet s and infor me d conse n t forms . After a period of days , I would contact the
school again, and, if permis s i on was granted (it was in every case), I would make
arrang e me n t s to visit the school to conduc t th e first phase of my study: the admi ni s t r a t i o n
of Persona l Meanin g Maps.
As a result of this ?conveni e n c e samp ling ? (Cohen & Manion, 1994) of schools and
classes , the schools shown in Table 3.2 for med the basis of my study, from which studen t s
were selected .
66
Table 3.2 Participant schools in the study
Name 7 Type of School Location Visit to Classes
L o u r d e s Girls
Scho o l
Indep e n d e n t Catho l i c
Girl s ? Scho o l
Subur b, West
Rand
Plane t a r i u m 1 Gr 8
Revel a t i o n
Scho o l
Smal l inde p e n d e n t
Chris t i a n schoo l
Subur b, East
Rand
Plane t a r i u m 1 mixed Gr
7-9
Achiev e me n t
Scho o l
Smal l inde p e n d e n t
schoo l
Subur b, West
Rand
HartRA O Gr 7
St. Augus t i n e? s
Scho o l
Inde p e n d e n t Miss i o n
Scho o l
Town East of
Pretor i a
HartR A O 2 Gr 7
Balfou r Fores t
Scho o l
Publ i c scho o l Subu r b,
Johan n e s b u r g
HartR A O 2 Gr 7
Boka mo s o
Scho o l
Publi c schoo l Towns h i p West
of Preto r i a
HartRA O Gr 7&8
The select i o n of studen t s who compl e t e d the PM M was straight f o r w a r d , and is describe d in
section 3.3.1. In total I obtained 145 PMMs fr om student s in seven school s . The actual
number was closer to 170, but some of these studen t s either did not return their informe d
conse n t forms , or did not actua l l y go on the visi t, and were theref o r e not used in the study.
My study being princip a l l y qualita t i v e , I needed to selec t a small e r number of student s to
intervi e w , both with referen c e to their PMM and in relatio n to thei r astronomy knowledg e
(section 3.3.2). Selection of whic h students to interview needed a set of criteria which I set
up based on my researc h questi o n s and on similar studie s in the literature (e.g. Anderson et
al . , 2000).
My research questio n 5 asks ?How do stude nts ? interest s and prior knowledg e affect
the learning experien c e of a school visit?? On e of my criter i a for select i n g studen t s for
interview was therefore identifying students who had particul a r l y strong interests or beliefs
which may have affecte d their learni n g at th e study site. Simil a r l y , if a studen t eithe r
showed consid e r a b l e prior knowle d g e or c onvers e l y lacked any prior knowled g e in the
area of astron o my , I could select them. Ande rs o n et al . (2000) , select e d studen t s who
provide d a range of scienti f i c and alter n at i v e conce p t i o ns in their concept maps, as well as
roughly equal representation of boys and girls; criteria that I al so applied in my selection.
In addit i o n to this, where the classes I sele ct e d includ e d both black and white studen t s , I
7 In ord er to main tain anon ymi ty, all sch oo l na mes are fictitio u s.
67
attempt e d to obtain repre s e n t a t i o n from all popula t i o n group s 8 . A further criter i o n used by
Anderso n et al . (2000 ) was the recomme n d a t i o n by the teache r that a studen t would be able
and prepare d to communi c a t e effect i v e l y with th e resea r c h team. I consi d e r e d that this ma y
introdu c e possib l e bias into the selecti o n , and preferred to obtain a ?veto recommendat i on?
from the teach e r in cases where s/he consi d e r e d the studen t unsuit a bl e for interv i e w .
Selectio n of my final research sampl e of 34 students is described in section 3.4.2.
3.4.3 Triangulation
T r i a n g u l a t i o n refers to the process of obtaini n g two or more for ms of evidenc e to improve
the validity of the findings (Cohen & Manion, 1994). I collecte d evidence in the form of
PMMs, interv i e w s and field notes, as well as an audio or video recor d of the class visit .
The process of data collect i o n is summari s e d in Figure 3.3, and issues of validity are
discuss e d in section 3.6.
Figure 3.3 The sequence of events in data collection
8 In South Africa, repo r ting of statistics often inclu d es refe ren c e to black , Indian , colour ed and white
indiv id u a ls in orde r to demo nstr a te redr e s s.
68
3.5 Ethical issues
I s s u e s of ethics are promin e n t in all the researc h literat u r e (e.g. Cohen and Manion 1994,
Henning 2004). In my study, prior to starting my data colle c t i o n , I had to satisfy the
Universi t y ? s Huma n Ethics Research Committ e e (Non-M e d i c a l ) that I had done everything
possible to ensure proper informed cons en t , anonymi t y and confid e n t i a l i t y for the
participants. To start with I obtained the perm iss i o n of my two study sites to use them in
the study, and also to use the real names of th e sites in repor t i n g on the researc h . Prior to
starting data collecti o n in a sc hool I provided all the research particip a n t s (student s ) with
information sheets on the proposed study, as we ll as consent forms (see Appendix D) for
themse l v e s and their parent s to sign if they wished to partici p a t e in the study. I did not
consid e r it necess a r y to obtain infor me d cons en t from the teache r s , as they were not
participants in the study.
Table 3.3 shows the retu rn rate of infor med consent fo r the 6 schools in which the study
was conducte d .
Table 3.3 Informed consent returns
Fictitious Name Code Classes No. of
students
approached
No. of students
who consented
% who
consented
L o u r d e s Girl s Scho o l scf 1 Gr 8 21 16 76
Revel a t i o n Schoo l sri 1 mixed Gr
7-9
8 8 100
Achi e v e m e n t Scho o l vho Gr 7 16 14 88
St. Augu s t i n e? s Scho ol sth 2 Gr 7 45 32 71
Balf o u r Fore s t Scho o l swo 2 Gr 7 75 37 49
Boka mo s o Scho o l tsw Gr 7&8 18 17 94
T h e r e was a relat i v el y high level of retur n of infor me d cons e n t from the majo r i t y of the
schools. As could be expected , when the num ber of students approach e d was relative l y
small (25 or fewer ) , the rate of conse n t was highe s t . In all cases I explai n e d the issue of
infor me d conse n t to the stude n t s , but did obt ai n assist a n c e from the teach e r s to colle c t in
the forms. In two cases, I found that the teach er s wanted to coerce the student s to sign, for
examp l e by telli n g them that they would not be able to go on the trip unles s the infor me d
consent form was signed and returned. I expl ai n e d to the teacher s who did this that this
69
was neither necessar y nor ethical, but they did not always appear convinced by my
argume n t and I did not interv e n e furthe r betwee n the teache r and studen t s in this matter .
The consent forms were provided only in E nglish . I conside r e d th is appr o p r i at e as
all the school s which parti c i p a t e d in the st udy used English as their language of learning
and teaching. Of the students in t ervi e w e d , 38% (n=34) said th ey used English as their
home langua g e , and a furthe r 38% used it as an additional language spoken at home. So
from the point of view of the studen t s and their parent s ? unders t a nding and signing the
for ms , I consi d e r e d that the use of Engli s h was appropri a t e . However, it could be argued
that in the two publi c schoo l s , while the stude n t s ? level of English was suffici e n t to
underst a n d the for ms for the purpose of being able to give their infor me d consen t , this ma y
not have been the case for their parent s / g u a r d i a n s who were required to sign. Discussi o n
with the stude n t s howev e r , assur e d me that thei r pare nt s / gua r di a ns level of English was
suffici e n t to underst a n d what they were signing .
Although students were told that, both orally and in writing, they were entitled to
revie w the trans c ri p t s of their intervi e w s , I did not actual l y offer this to them onc e the
inter v i e w s were trans cr i b e d . This was partl y due to the fact that the inter v i e w s were
trans cr i be d seve r al mont h s afte r the tapes we re made, and also because the logistics of
arranging a review of the tr anscription would have been difficult. Also, a number of
quali t a t i v e metho d o l o g y texts note that this ?re spo n d e n t feedba c k ? involv e s power relati o n s
which make it unlike l y that the interv i e w e e wi ll make signific a n t changes (Univers i t y of
Huddersf i e l d , 2006). This is particul a r l y releva n t in the case of childre n who have been
told that the trans c ri p t is a re cord of what they said record e d in the intervi e w . Howev e r , I
recogni s e that the fact that the students were not given the opportun i t y to revie w thei r own
transcri p t s could be a limitati o n in my study.
One aspect of ?self? select i o n by student s (or their parent s) is parti c ula r l y worth
commen t i n g on here, as it demons t r a t e s how the context of a school visit in a develop i n g
country is very differe n t from those in mo re develop e d contex t s . In schools where the
socio - ec o n omi c level of the parent s is relat i ve l y low, the issue of affo rd a b i l i t y of visits
affects student s ? partici p a t i o n in school trips, and therefo r e in my study. In both the public
school s , as well as in schools which were part of the p ilot study, only students whose
paren t s can affor d to pay are able to parti c i p ate in school visits. In effect, this selects out
the studen t s whose home circums t a n c e s precl u d e s payme n t for visit s to sites such as those
used in my study, and therefore biases the re sults in favour of stude nts from higher socio-
70
economi c status homes. Since the entran c e fees ar e subsidi s e d , the biggest cost of visits to
either of my study sites is the cost of trans po r t . Unless the school is able to pay for such
students, which Balfour Forest School did in the case of some students in my study,
students whose parents who cannot or are no t prepared to pay ar e excluded from my
sample . This may well accoun t for less than 50 % of student s / p a r e n t s signing the infor med
conse n t forms in this schoo l . If a stude n t or parent knows they are unlike l y to be able to
attend the visit, there is little reason to agree to part ic i p a t e in the st udy. Students from
Boka moso were in a slightly differen t position , in that they were part of a scienc e club for
whom the visit was being organis e d . Being a relatively small self-selected group, there
would have been more incent i v e to sign the conse n t forms . It is impo r t a n t to note that the
two public schools are represen t a t i v e of the va st majority of schools in South Africa, and
that, like the student s in Jrene Rahm?s study in the USA (Rahm, 2004), such student s will
norma l l y have littl e acces s to science centre s and museums .
Adler and Lerman (2003) stress that rese arch, particularly in developing country
conte x t s , has a multip l i c i t y of respon s i b i l i t i e s to and owners h i p by the partici p a n t s, the
researcher and his or her community, and the public. My study attemp ted to address these
issues. Although my research di d not directly benefit the students who participated, I
consi d e r that it does benefi t fu tur e gener a t i o n s of stude n t s at the parti ci p a t i n g schoo l s . I
have kept in touch with the schoo l s , and inten d to make prese n t a t i o n s on schoo l visit s to all
staff once the study is comple t e . Other indire c t benef i c i a r i e s are teachers and school
children througho u t South Africa and the region, as I have already presented interi m
findin g s to confere n c e s , and intend to contin ue this. The princi p a l benefi c i a ri e s of the
resear c h are the planeta r i u m and HartRAO , who will recei v e copie s of the thesi s and I will
make prese n t a t i o n s to their educa t o r s an d stres s the impl i c a t i on s for their own
progr a m me s . In addit i on , I will prese n t my findi n g s to the scien c e centr e commu n i t y in
South e r n Afric a at their annua l confe r e n c e . In these ways I believ e I have addres s e d issues
of respon s i b i l i t y to th e participants, the research comm un i t y , and to a lesser extent the
public. However , aspects of ownersh i p by thes e stakeholders are less clear, and I did not
identi f y them as priori t i e s when the study was for mul a t e d . While the resear c h acade my
will have a degre e of owner s h i p as the topic of rese a r c h is impo r t a n t in the infor ma l
learni n g commun i t y , I need to de vis e ways of great e r owner s h i p by the partic i p a n t s and the
public in future research projects .
71
3.6 Issues of credibility and trustworthiness
U n l i k e quanti t a t i v e resear c h , a qualit a t i v e study cannot rely solely on the concep t s of
validi t y and relia b i l i t y as crite ri a for a ssess i ng the qualit y of the researc h . Inst e a d ,
quali t a t i v e resea rc h texts ident i f y a variety of ?qualit y checks ? to determi n e the exte n t to
which the resear c h can be regard e d as credib l e and trustw o r t h y . The follow i n g sectio n s
discu s s how I attempt e d to build check s of quali t y into my resea r c h throu g ho u t the
planning, data collection and analysis.
3.6.1 Validity
A great deal has been writte n about the concep t s of validi t y and relia bi l i t y with respe c t to
qualita t i v e resear c h . Some case study resear c h deals direc t l y with is sues of validity, for
examp l e Yin (1994 ) recom me n d s using multi p l e case studi e s to impro v e exter n a l validi t y
and matchin g predic t e d patter n s with empiric a l l y based patte r n s in the data to impro v e
internal validity. In my own case I asked co nt e n t specia l i s t s to examin e my interv i e w
schedu l e s for face validi t y , and made change s accord i n gl y . This was not howeve r possib l e
for the constr u c t i v i s t tool of Person a l Mean in g Mappin g , where the concep t of validi t y has
little meanin g . Many schola r s who work qualitat i v e l y (e.g. Henning, 2004; Miles &
Huberma n , 1994) have questi o n e d the use of valid i t y in quali t a t i ve resea r c h as it is a
const r u ct of the posit i vi s t paradi gm. An alterna t i v e is the conce pt of trust w o r t hi n e s s
(Linc o l n & Guba, 1985) which refe r s to the exten t to which the reade r can trust the
findin g s , interp r e t a t i o n s and claims as bei ng ?worth paying attenti o n to, worth taking
accoun t of?? (p 290). Elliot Mishle r goes even furthe r , and asks whethe r subseq u e n t
researc h e r s will value the finding s and clai ms enough to use as a basis for their own
researc h (Mishle r , 1990). Instead of using ?the static propertie s of instruments and scores?
(p 419) invest i g a t o r s would examin e the met hod s used in the resear c h and base their
judgeme nt on this. Other resear c h e r s have describ e d the need for an ?audit trail? in
qualit a t i v e resear c h which docume nt s the steps taken and decisi o n s made during the
analy si s to demon s t r a t e how the resea r c he r mo ved from data to the final findi n g s and
conclus i o n s (Miles & Huberma n , 1994).
I have attempt e d to lay out in this ch apter the detaile d proced u r e s by which I
colle c t e d my data, as well as the vario u s assu mp t i o n s I made. Chapte r s 5 and 6 explain the
proces s e s by which I analys e d my data. More im por t a n t l y , attac h e d to this thesi s is a CD
contai ni n g the Hermen e u t i c Unit (HU) of the quali t a t i v e analy si s soft w a r e I used to
72
analys e all the data (ATLAS . t i versio n 5.2) , which provides my audit trail. The HU
inclu d e s all prima r y docume n t s (PMMs and trans c r i pt i o n s of intervi e w s ) , coding of these
docume n t s , code famil i e s , comme n t s on codes and famil i e s , inci d e nta l me mos I made
while exami n i n g the data as well as a journa l recordi n g all my thought s as the analysi s
progress e d over the period 2004-200 6 . For example, a reader can decide to exami ne the
data on which one of my portrait s in Chapter 7 or 8 is based. If he or she chooses to look at
Brend a ? s data they can open the HU, selec t the primary documen t fa mi ly for Brenda, and
exami n e all the data and how it was coded . Ex tracts from the HU are shown in Appe ndix
E.
Toget h e r , these provi d e a satis fa ct or i l y de tailed description of the basis for my
claims in Chapter s 9 and 10, and in this way satisfy the criteria fo r trustwo r t h i n e s s as
detaile d by researc h e r s such as Henning (2004) and Opie (2004).
3.6.2 Reliability
R e l i a b i l i t y refer s to the abilit y to replica t e the finding s of th e study if repeat ed by another
research e r under similar conditi o n s . As with validit y , a qualita tive research approach does
not lend itsel f to repli c abi l i t y , given the fact that the data are colle ct e d under very speci fi c
condi t i o n s from a relat i v e l y small numbe r of partic i p a n t s (Bass e y , 1999). For this reason, it
was not possib l e to use one of the normal crite r i a for reliabi l i t y , which is to examine the
consi s t e n c y of resul t s in a test over a perio d of time. Inst e a d , I used the noti o n of inter - r at er
relia b i l i t y to asses s the degre e to which othe r resea rc h e r s would classi fy my data into
catego r i e s , and compar e those with my own (Ruiz- P r i mo & Shavel s o n , 1996). As I
descri b e in Chapte r 6, I asked two collea g ues using my Big Ideas typology to group
studen t s into catego r i e s . The result s of their classi f i c a t i o n were cons i st e n t with my own,
and demon s t r at e d that my resul t s in this sect i on of the thesi s are as relia bl e as could be
expec t e d .
3.6.3 Reflexivity
R e fl e x i v i t y or Refl e x i v ene s s is the exten t to which a resear che r is aw are of his or her own
assumpt i o n s and biases in constr u c t i n g meani n g from the data acquir e d during the resear c h
proce s s (Ryan & Weisne r , 1997) . In Chapte r 1 I descri b e d the positi o n from which I
approa c h e d my resear c h, a point which I tried to be aware of during th e data collec t i on and
analysi s proce s s e s . As analys i s proce e d e d I kept a journa l (avai l a bl e withi n the
Hermen e u t i c Unit of ATLAS. t i attach e d to this thesis ) which shows my though t s and
73
inter p r et a t i ons of the data. In these ways I attempt e d to ensur e that bias was kept to a
mini mu m in the analys i s, and where prese n t th at I explaine d my th inki n g to the reader .
3.7 Reflection
M y resear c h method s were design e d to cap ture student s ? prior knowled g e of basic
astro n o my as well as their relat e d inter e s t s and be lief s before they partic i p a t e d in the visit
to the scien c e cent r e . I need to accept that th e process of the pre-vis i t PMM and intervi e w ,
as well as my presence on their visit set up a pedagogi cal frame around the visit and
probabl y height e n e d studen t s ? awaren e s s of th e trip and the topic of astrono my . In this
sense my data collection could be regar de d as a form of intervention which would be
absent in most school visits . Al thou g h I tried to remain a non-pa rticipant in the visits made
by the school classe s to the study sites, at leas t some studen t s would likely have viewed me
as part of the educa t i ve team based at the science centre. Data provided in subsequent
chapt e r s needs to be viewed with this limita t i o n in mind, and I will discuss it further in
Chapte r 9.
This chapte r has descri b e d my resear c h design and method s of data collec t i o n in
some detai l in an attem p t to provi d e the r eader with a full account of how the study was
conduct e d . Chapter 4 provide s a narrati v e of two studen t s ? visits to the study sites to show
their experi e n c e as partic i p a n t s in the out-of-school trip.
74
Chapter 4
4 Setting the Scene ? a narrative of the visits
This chapter shows the reader what it is lik e to visit the sites at which the study
was based. I decided to present it as findi ngs from the research, in the form of
narratives of two students? visits. This serves two purposes: to enable the
reader to experience a visit through the eyes of a child, and for me as
researcher to share findings from in terviews and observation and in doing so
?open a window on the mind?(Cortazzi, 1993).
4.1 Introduction
N a r r a t i v e is used in the quali t a t i v e resea r c h lite r at u r e to refe r to a vari et y of prose texts , but
in this study I am using Polkin g h o r n e ? s (1995) description of narrative as a text which is
organi s e d thema t i c a l l y by plot. In my case the pl ot refers to the experie n c e s that the student
has during the visit to the astrono m y - b a s e d science centre. Polking h o r n e identif i e s two
types of narrative study, name d rather confus i n g l y as ?analys i s of narratives? and ?narrative
analysi s ? . In the former , a study examin e s pe ople?s stories and life hi stories and comes up
with categor i e s or groupin g s on the basis of such narratives. In narrative analysis a
resea r c h e r uses data colle c t e d to produ c e a na rrat i v e or narrat i v e s as the resul t of the study.
The findin g s prese n t e d in this chapte r repre se n t the latter .
Dollar d (1935) develo p e d a set of criter i a which he ?viewed as indispe n s a b l e for
judging a life history techni que? (p 8). In his paper on narrative configuration,
Polkinghorne (1995) adapted Dollard?s seven cr iteria as guidelines for narrative analysis
writin g . I have follow e d Polkin g h o r n e ? s advice a nd attempt e d to use these guide l i n e s in the
develo p me n t of the narrat i v e in Sectio n s 4.2 and 4.3. The seven guidelin e s can be
summar i s e d as follow s :
? Attention must be given to the cultural context in which the story is set. The charac t e r s
in the narr a t i v e intera c t withi n a set of norms and values de veloped as the result of the
cultur e in which they exist .
75
? T h e protagonists (main charac t e r s ) in the story should be clearl y descri b e d in terms of
how they are embodied : age, physic a l featur e s , me ntal capaci t i e s and emotio n a l
respon s e s are some of the ways in which this can be expressed.
? Relationships between the people in the narrat i ve need to be clearl y explai n e d in the
developme n t of the plot, so that the effect on the main charac t e r s can be brough t out.
? A narra t i v e that involv e s a main charac t e r (a s both of mine do) ?needs to concentr a t e
on the choice s and action s of this centra l person? (Polking h o r n e 1995 p 17). Such a
person does not only react to events but also shape s these event s , and the resea r c he r
needs to describ e how this interaction occurs .
? A l l characte r s have a history , and the describer of the narr a t i v e needs to be able to
relate the protagonist?s ac tion s in relatio n to his or her past experie n c e s .
? T h e story that results from narrat i v e analys i s should be time bounde d and presen t e d in
enoug h detai l to demon s t r a t e that it is a unique description, not merely an averag e
accoun t abstra c t e d from a series of observat i o n s of differen t people.
? Finally, the outcome of the analys i s needs to be plausi b l e , unders t a n d a b l e and
believab l e , often with a clear conclusi o n whic h is a configuration of the various data
elemen t s into a well-r o un d e d systema t i c whole.
I n additio n to Dollard ? s criteri a , Polking h o r n e has developed a further guideline which he
consi d e rs impor t a nt . This is the need for the res ea r c h e r to share with the reade r the role the
researc h e r played in the constru c t i o n of th e narrati v e , and how he or she has shaped the
resulting story (Polkinghorne, 1995) . I consider that this guidelin e is relat e d to the analysis
rather than the data, and have attempt e d to do so in this chapte r . Wolco t t (1988 ) makes
recommendations for narrative accounts in his story of a ?sneaky ki d?. He suggests that
?the story should make a point that transc e n d s its modest or igins? , and ?the case mu st be
partic u l a r , but the implic a t i o n s broad ? (p. 246). In the narrativ e s portraye d , what the
studen t s experi e n c e before , during and after th e visit s to Harte b e e s t h o e k Radio Astro n o my
Observatory and the Johannesbur g Planeta r i u m are typical of the exper i e nc e s of all the
school visits observe d in my study, includi n g those observ e d during the pilot phase.
Zeller (1995a; 1995b) recommends a particu l a r style for a na rrative analysis, that of
?new journalism? as described by Tom Wo lfe in 1973. The writing device s recomme n d e d
for new journal i s m and espouse d by Zeller are ?the telling of a story in scenic episod e s ? ,
?charac t e r develop me n t through dialogu e ? , ?expe r i e n c i n g an event thro ugh the perspective
76
of one of its parti c i p a nt s? , and ?the full detai l i ng of the ? status life? ? or rank ? of scene
partici p a n t s ? (Zeller , 1995b p. 79 after Wol fe 1973).
Each of these techn i q ue s has impli c a t i o ns for a school visit narra t i ve . Scene - b y-
s c e n e const r u c t i o n consi s t s of a series of event s , each with its own ?stor y ? , and in a
museum or scien c e centr e cont e x t can be equat e d to the main charac t e r visiting a series of
exhibi t s with a narrat i on of the experi e nc e s he or she has at each. Accor d i n g to Zeller the
development of character through dialogue presents particul a r challeng e s for the
qualit a t i v e resea r c h e r regar d i n g the extent to which he or she should report actual dialogue
or an impres s i o n (and theref o r e an interp r e t a t i o n ) of the data. Si mila r l y , the actual proces s
of obtain i ng conve r s a t i o n s in museum setti n g s is diffi c u l t due to the natur e of the
interac t i v e experi e n c e (Allen , 2002). Zeller ? s recomme n d a t i o n of a subject i v e viewpo i n t by
tellin g the story throug h the eyes of one of its parti c i p a nt s is to show that no account can be
truly object i v e . An attemp t to presen t an obj ectiv e descript i o n of a science centre visit
could result in a mechan i s t i c description of the exhibits a nd presenta t i o n s which would not
prope r l y captu r e the natur e of the exper i e nc e fo r the majorit y of visitor s . The final writing
device (the provisi o n of deta il ) is sugges t e d to make the story and characters believable,
and is found in many ge nres of writing .
In the case of a school visit, how the ma in chara c t e r inter a c t s with his or her
surrou n d i n gs , fellow studen t s , teache r s and scien ce centre staff is importan t to provide the
reade r with evide n c e that the narra t i v e prese nt e d is plausi b l e , and relat es to sever a l of
Dollar d ? s crite r i a descr i be d above . I demons t r a t e how each of the criter i a relate s to my data
sources from the study in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Relationship of data sources to criteria for constructing narrative
Criterion (from Polkinghorne 1995) Data Source
C u l t u r a l conte x t Inter v i e w s wi th stude n t s , field notes from
schoo l visit s
Embo d i e d prot a g o n i s t Inte r v i e w s with stud e n t s , fiel d note s and
vide o from study site visi t
Relat i o n s h i p s betwe e n peopl e Field not e s from schoo l visi t s , fiel d notes and
video from study site visit
Main charac t e r s intera c t i o n with events Inter v i e w s with stude n t s , field notes and
vide o from study site visi t
Prota g o n i s t? s histo ry Inter v i e w s with stude n t s
Time boun d ed story Fiel d note s and vide o from stud y site visi t
77
In the narrat i v e s I have attempt e d to follo w the guidel i n es of Polki n gh o r n e , Zeller and
Wolc o t t in order to creat e a rich and text u r e d narr at i v e anal y s i s of what it means for a
student to visit either HartR AO or the planetarium. In doing so, I have drawn mainly on
field notes and video- and audio- taped recordings of school vis its to the sites, as well as
field notes made durin g my visit s to the sc hools and intervi e w s with the student s and
teacher s . Howeve r , what I?m present i n g is not a life hist o r y , but a snapsho t of an event in
life, so some of the guideli n e s , such as 4 (t he central charac t e r ) , 5 (the charact e r ? s life
experien c e s ) and 6 (the unique descript i o n of th e event ) are more relev a nt than other s such
as 2 (the charact e r embodi e d ) and 3 (how the characte r relates to others).
In the follow i n g narra t i v e s , the ficti o n al st uden t s Kaelo and Kits o are based on two
individuals, but are a synthe sis of several students who visited Hartebeesthoek Radio
Astronomy Observat o r y and the Johanne s b u r g Planet a r i u m respec t i v e l y .
4.2 A visit to Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory
4.2.1 Before the visit
K a e l o was very excite d to be visiti n g Hart e b e e st ho e k Radio Astro n o my Obser v a t o r y. His
science teacher, Mr. Maoto, had told hi m that all thre e class e s in the 7 th grade would be
able to go, but that they had to pay R90 fo r the trip. His exciteme nt was tinged with a
concern that his parents would not be able to pay, and that he would be left behind. He felt
it was a bit unfai r that if this was a school tr ip related to the topic they were doing in
Natural Scienc e (?NS? as they all called it at school) , they should all get to go. When he
told his paren t s and gave them the infor ma t i o n sheet and indemn i t y form for their signat u r e
he feared the worst, but when he remi nd e d his Mom the follow i n g week, he was deligh t e d
that she signed and gave him the mone y to take to school the next day.
Kaelo had celebra t e d his 13 th birthd a y in June at his hom e in Alexand r a (?Alex? ) , a
township in northern Johannesburg. It wasn?t a big party, just a few friends round. His
parents had long ago expl ained to him that they were prep ar e d to have small celebr a t i o n s
for Kaelo?s and his siblings? bi rthdays, although in their ow n SeTswana culture birthdays
weren? t really observ e d . Kaelo was the third of four children: two boys and two girls,
which his mother always said made a nice even nu mber . Until recent l y , he had been going
to school in Alex, but his mother was concer n e d that the high school he was likely to go to
after complet i n g his grade 7 was ?not doing well ?. Kaelo didn?t unders t a nd what his mother
was referr i n g to, but he didn?t compl a i n when she moved hi m to Balfour Forest School , as
78
he knew he could make new friends quite quick l y . For Kaelo, that was the main reaso n for
tolerati n g school: his friends.
In NS, all the grade 7 classe s were doing the same topi c in term thre e : stuff to do
with energy . Kaelo accept e d that they were going on a trip to an observ a t o r y , which wasn?t
to do with energ y . He didn? t think much about it; he knew that an obser v a t or y was
somethi n g to do with the stars and astrolo g y (or was it astr ono my ? ) , and the idea of going
on a trip was cool. In prima r y schoo l they had once been on a trip to Johan n e s b u r g Zoo,
which he still thought about. A fe w days before this observatory trip a tall white man (?Mr.
Lelli ot t ? ) had come to the schoo l and expla i n e d th at he wanted them to draw and write for
him. Before they did so, he drew a sort of spider diagram on the board and asked them
questio n s about Johann e s b u r g . He then said he?d like the class to draw their own diagra m,
but based on ?space, stars an d planets?. Kaelo didn?t mind doi ng this ? at least it was
different from his norma l class ? but he found he couldn?t wr ite much on the diagram. He
mainly put down words he was familiar with ? the names of the planets he knew, galaxy,
come t, asteroids and suchlike. He didn?t rea lly know muc h about the words, but he did
know that they were in space, and that?s what the man seeme d to want.
After the class Kaelo and his friends didn? t discu s s the man?s visit . Kaelo heard
some of the girls sayi n g they should go a nd look up about space and planet s in books so
that they could show the white man that they knew a lot. Kaelo thought, as he had many
times, that he would never under s t a n d girls ! A few days later Kaelo saw the man again,
and some of the class were called, one-by - o n e , to see him. Kaelo wasn?t one of them, and
he was a bit relie v e d .
When the day final l y came , a Friday , Kaelo was almos t burst i n g with excit e me n t
about the trip. But it was unfai r for his seven or so classma t e s who wouldn ? t be going. His
best friend Karabo was amongs t them, and he a voided talking about the trip when Karabo
was around . Still, nothin g in class had been done in prepara t i o n for the visit anyway . All
Mr. Maoto had done was to collect the money a nd indemni t y forms , and tell the class what
they should wear for the trip. In fact Mr . Maoto told them that he wouldn? t be going
himself, but he didn?t say why. Kaelo was plea se d , as he didn? t like his teache r ? s sharp
tongue, especial l y when they were out of class, playin g footba l l for exampl e .
At seven o?clock Kaelo arrived at school by minibus taxi as usual, met up with his
friends , and they climbe d on the bus togethe r . His mother had given him a packed lunch,
and he decided to eat the chips straigh t away. The bus left at seven-thirty and Kaelo and his
79
friends recited some hip-hop songs on the jour ney . There were three teacher s on the bus,
and as Kaelo had joined the school in January he only knew one of them. He was pleased
that the teach e r s kept mostl y to thems e l v e s , and that he and hi s friends could enjoy
themsel v e s . After about 80 minutes Kaelo saw th at they were among hills, and there were
some ?satel l i t e s ? in the distan c e , like the ones people had on their houses to watch DSTV 9 ,
only much bigger . Then the bus turne d on to a narro w road and began to descend steeply.
They suddenly saw a really big ?satelli t e ? , as well as a number of buildin g s , and Kaelo
realised that they had arrived.
4.2.2 ?Planets and stars and like, well, space?
T h e students all got off the bus chatteri n g lo udl y . Kate and Daisy met them, introd u c e d
thems e l v e s as ?educ a t ors ? , and said that th ey would be showing the students around the
observa t o r y for the next few hours. The stude nts were split into two groups, and Kaelo
started off with Kate, who act ed just like a teacher: ?Wha t is astronomy? Can anyone tell
me what it is??
It?s spac e ma?a m
The study of the stars
It?s like when people tell your future
...Plane t s and stars and like, well, space
After a few answer s from the class and an explanation from Kate, Kaelo heard that
astrono my and astrolo g y were two differe n t thin gs, although he still wasn?t quite sure of
the diffe r e n c e betwe e n them. He wasn? t surpr i se d to hear that HartR A O (as Kate called the
obser v a t or y ) was built as long ago as the 1960s ; Kaelo though t that they looke d prett y old.
His mind be gan to wander a bit when Kate went on to descri b e why the observ a t o r y was
built for severa l of the space missi ons to the Moon, Venus and Mars, and how the South
African governme n t now owned it. He did no tice that Kate mentio n e d some th i n g called
?Nasse r ? , which he knew was involv e d with space travel .
They went inside a large hall which had some pieces of weird appara t u s , some
exhibi t s and poster s on the walls, as well as a very large model of wh at Kaelo thoug h t must
be the Moon. The students sat on the floor, and Kate began by asking them questio n s about
the solar syst e m and plane t s . Most of the stude nts called out planet na me s, as well as other
words like comets, asteroi d s and galaxie s . Ka te stressed that the visit today was about
9 The main satel lite pay telev isio n chann el in Sou th Africa
80
havin g fun and learn i n g at the same time, and that they shoul d try to think as well as play
with the exhibit s . Kate then talked to them about the sun and stars. Kaelo knew some of
what she was saying, about how the sun is a st ar, but he had thought that the sun is the
bigge s t star. He heard that the stars are mostl y the same size as or bigge r than the sun and
that it is only becaus e they are far away that they seem so small. Kaelo under s t o o d when
Kate said that the tree in the car park looks big compa r e d to the trees on the hill, but they
are actual l y the same size. His mind wander e d a bit when Kate start e d talking about light
trave l l i n g from the stars to Earth , and he star ted whisper i n g to Sipho about the big satelli t e
when Kate talke d about light years . He liste n e d again when Kate started to talk about the
death of the Sun when it runs out of fuel to burn. Kaelo thoug h t the idea of the Sun dying
was cool. She said that stars spin, and asked if it will spin fast er when ?livin g ? or when it is
?dead and collap se d ? . Kaelo then jumped up when Kate called out for volunt e e r s to sit on a
sort of turnta b l e . He shot up his hand and laughe d when he was called first, wonder i n g
what he was going to have to do on this rotating disc. To him it looked a bi t like a giant
version of a turntab l e that DJs use to play vi nyls at the commun i t y hall back home ? he?d
been to a very loud party there once.
Copyright ? Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory
Figure 4.1 The Turntable
K a e l o kneel e d on the turnta bl e , and Kate gave him weight s to hold in his hands. He held
them out while Kate spun the turnta b l e sl owly , making him rotate. Then on Kate?s
instru c t i o n he pulled his arms into his si des and found that he immed i a t e l y spun much
81
faster and nearly fell off; everybody laughed. He got off the turntable and other students
tried , with simil a r resul t s . Feeli n g dizzy but excit e d , Kaelo didn? t reall y liste n to Kate
explaini n g why he spun faster with his arms pulled in, bu t heard her saying somethin g
about the energy needed to spin a large star (arms out) was convert e d to speed in a small
star (arms in). He just liked spinning and feeling the difference in speed, and wasn?t too
disturbed by the shouting of th e other studen t s outsid e . He couldn? t see what they were
doing, but it sounded fun as they were making a lot of nois e and he could hear water
splatt e r i n g around . Kate then pointe d to the e normo u s model of the Moon in the hall, and
asked Kaelo? s group what you see when you lo ok at the Moon over a few nights.
It changes shape ma?a m, some ti me s it?s round like a plate, and
somet i me s looks like a banana .
It?s a crescen t or a half moon.
Kate said ?Yes, that?s right, does anyone know why it does that?? No one was sure,
so Kate took the group to a dark room at the back of the hall to demo ns t r a t e 1 0 . One lamp
was set up in the room to repres e n t the sun; each student was provided with a ping pong
ball (?the Moon? ) on a stick, an d Kate showed how to turn round and round on your feet
(?rotate 360 degrees? Kate ca lled it) and observe what was happening to the lit and unlit
sides of the ball. Kaelo tried it out, and saw that the light from the lamp lit diff e r e nt
amoun t s of the ball, depe n d i n g on its positi o n in relat i o n to the lamp. For examp l e , when
he was stand i n g with his back to the lamp, th e ball was fully lit, and Kate said that this
repre s e n t e d the full moon, and when he was si de- o n to the lamp only half the ball was lit,
represen t i n g a half moon. Kael o realise d that the ball wa s meant to be the Moon going
round the Earth and how the sun?s light fell on the Moon caused the differe n t Moon
shapes. So it wasn?t the Earth?s shadow fa lli n g on the Moon making it look someti m e s half
and someti me s full! He wanted to ask Kate why someti me s there is no Moon in the sky at
night, but Kate said it was time to move on, so he didn?t get the chance .
10 Not all group s who visited HartRA O during my stu d y looked at Moon phases
82
Copyright ? Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory
Figure 4.2 Moon Phases
4.2.3 The Sun, Whispers and Rockets
K a e l o and his group then moved outside , and Da isy calle d them over to a small teles c o p e
pointi n g up to the sky, with a r ound white ?shade? att ached to it. Daisy said that she was
going to show the m the sun. First, she told them someth i n g Kaelo alread y knew: never to
look at the sun direct l y , especi a l l y with a telesco p e or binocul a r s . Then she told them how
hot the sun is: 5000 degree s at its surfac e and 15 millio n degree s at its centre . Kaelo tried
to think about this, but could n ? t reall y imagi n e that sort of heat; he knew that water boile d
at just under 100 degree s at school as they had measured it once, so the idea of thousands
or milli o n s of degre e s didn? t reall y make sens e . Befor e Kaelo could puzzl e this out, Daisy
arrange d the telesco p e so that a round white patch was project e d on to a small card under
the teles c o pe . Kaelo saw that the white patc h was actua l l y the sun (Dai s y said the ?sun? s
image ? ) and notic e d that it moved slowl y acro ss the card even though the telescope wasn?t
moving. Daisy said that this wa s due to the ?rotation of the Earth?, and the ?sun?s apparent
move me n t acros s the sky? was becaus e the Ea rth spins on its axis. Kaelo had heard about
this in primar y school and seen a video of it on television, so he knew what Daisy was
talking about: day and night caused by the Eart h spinning with differen t sides facing the
sun and getting daylight. Then Daisy pointed out some tiny black pa tches on the sun ?Does
anyone know what these are??
83
?Some dirt on the micro s c o p e glass ? sa id Tebogo and severa l boys laughed. Daisy
said that these were sunspo t s . Kaelo had never heard of these , and heard Daisy saying they
are cool er areas of the surface due to magne ti c storms on the sun blockin g out the light .
Kaelo wasn?t really sure wh at a magneti c storm was, but he thought they looked pretty
cool anyway. He also heard Daisy say that 100 Earths could fit across the image of the sun
they were seeing, and he thought how enor mo u s the sun must be. Da isy asked the group
?Would you like to live on the Sun??
No!
Why not?
It?s too hot!
Copyright ? Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory
Figure 4.3 Projection of the Sun
After a few more questions from the group wh ich Kaelo didn?t rea lly listen to, they
went to the car park, where there was a sort of figure - o f - e i g h t and a curved line painte d on
the ground . Daisy explai n e d that this is a sundi a l , used for telli n g th e time, and tha t the
time is paint e d in white on the curve d secti o n and the date is the yellow writi n g on the
figure - o f - e i g h t . She then asked the studen t s the date (24 October ) , and got one of the girls
(Nnaniki) to stand on the yellow line at th e right position. Nnanik i then put her hand up
and Daisy explai n e d that wher e the shadow of her hand cros sed the white circle was the
time of day. It wasn?t very cl ear to Kaelo, but when Daisy used a long pole instead of
Nnani k i , Kaelo could see that the pole? s shad ow cross e d the white line at just after the
84
?10? mark. Lookin g at his watch, he could see that the real time was ten past ten; this
sundial was quite accurate! Da isy explaine d that before th e invention of watches this
method was an import a n t way of tellin g the time. She went on to say that as the position of
the sun chang e s in the sky, the shadow it casts m oves, and can be used to tell the time. She
then asked:
What direction are you guys facing towards now?
East! North! South!
Daisy laughed.
OK, which one is it? Look we are facing to war ds the sun now. Where
does it rise?
East !
OK, which direct i o n is that? Point to it.
Several of the class pointed East, ot hers pointed in other directi o n s .
Right.
Daisy confir me d those who were correct .
So if that directi o n is East, where is North?
Final l y , the class was orient e d and Kael o saw that he was facing roughl y North
while the sun?s shadow was poi nting roughly South. He got a bi t lost when Daisy began to
talk about the yellow figure - o f -eight being called an analemma , and its shape being due to
the Eart h? s tilt and orbit. Again , his mind began to wander a bit ?
Copyright ? Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory
Figure 4.4 Sundial
85
Kaelo ? s atten t i o n was jerke d back to the prese nt when Daisy then said that ?girls
like to talk on the telep ho n e ? . This was somet h i n g that Kaelo knew, as his older sister often
chatte d for ages on the phone to her boyfri e n d . Kaelo thought they were now going to do
something with cell phones, but they walked ov er to what Kaelo thought of as a satellite,
point i n g side w a y s . Daisy calle d them dishes , and split the group into two; one group
standing next to one dish a nd the other group at a dish about 20 metres away. The two
dishe s were facin g each other and one perso n could then whisp e r into the dish in turns .
Kaelo ? s class ma t e s showe d some surpr i s e when whispe r i n g and listen i n g at the dishes , and
when it came to his turn he found he could h ear the perso n whisp e r i n g from the other dish
perfec t l y . Kaelo heard Sipho saying some th i n g rude about Bontl e in to the dish, and the
boys near them laughe d , a little cruell y Kaelo thought . The group each had two turns at this
?teleph o n e ? as Daisy joking l y called it, and then she asked them if they knew how it
worked.
Copyright ? Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory
Figure 4.5 Whisper Dish and Telescope
T h e r e are wires running under the ground ma?am
It?s like a cellph o n e ma?am
No miss, it?s the shape of the satel l i t es
Daisy picked up on this last suggest i o n a nd ignored the others. She compared the
dish shape to a reflec t or on car headli g h t s or a torch. She said that the shape concent r at e d
86
the sound , and the fact that the dishe s were lined up very carefu l l y with each other meant
that the sound carried perfectl y between th e two. She said somethi n g about a parabol i c
shape of the dishes, but Kaelo di dn?t quite get that part of it. But he did see the simil a ri t y
betwe e n these dishe s and the enorm o u s dish poin t i n g at the sky. Daisy said that it is a radio
teles c o p e , and that its shape conce nt r a t e d wave s comi n g fr om stars so that they could be
detecte d by the astrono me r s studyin g them. Da isy also said that DSTV dishes did the same
thing, and that they are pointi n g to a satell i t e in the sky sendin g te levision signals. Kaelo
wished that he had DSTV; he had watched th e cartoon channel at his friend?s house a few
times. At this point the group stood under a tree, and Daisy answer e d lots of their questi o n s
on all sorts of aspects of astrono my . Kaelo aske d ?If the DSTV satellit e in the sky is going
round the Earth, how come there is no break in signal when it goes the other side? ?
?That? s a very good questio n . In fact the DSTV satelli t e orbits th e Earth at exactly
the same speed as the Earth spins . So it is always in our sky, and there?s no break in
signal ? . Kaelo heard Daisy, but he wasn?t sure he really got it. He wondered if satellites
ever smashed into each other. But he didn?t ask Daisy.
Daisy then walked the group to the other side of the car park where Kaelo had
earlier noticed the shouting and sloshing-of-water sounds comi ng from the other group.
Daisy told them that they were going to be la unch i n g rocket s into space! In fact they were
using Coke bottle s and bicycl e pumps, but it still looked f un. Kaelo paired up with Ross
and they fille d thei r bottl e half full of water fr om the tap, fitted it to the ?rocket launcher?,
and pumpe d it with the bicyc l e pump. Ross started pumping it, but got tired when nothing
happen e d , so Kaelo took over the pumpin g and noticed air bubbling through the water
inside the bottle. Suddenl y the bottle shot high into the air, showering them with water.
87
Copyright ? Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory
Figure 4.6 Launching Rockets
K a e l o thought this was cool, the best thing they had done here so far, and ran to the
water tap to refil l the bottl e . Daisy came over and sugge s t e d that they exper i me n t with
different amounts of water in the bottle. They tr ied with a full bottle, but it didn?t rise very
high into the air, as it seeme d to be too hea vy . They found that a quart e r bottl e flew highe s t
in the air. Kaelo found that if he held the bottle on the launche r with a finger while it was
being pumped it flew higher . They then tried it with no water at all, but it hardl y rose off
the launch e r . After mo re fun Daisy called th e group together and asked if they could
explain what had been happening. K aelo wasn? t reall y in terested in this b it, he would have
prefe r r e d to carry on launc h i n g rocke t s , and he di dn?t reall y liste n to what Daisy said. If he
had been asked he would probably have said that rockets should only carry a small amount
of fuel (water) in order for them to rise highest in the sky. ?W hy as k us about this??
thought Kaelo, feeling frustrat e d .
4.2.4 Break with Gravity
A t about 10.40 Daisy said it was time for brea k. Kaelo and his friends sat outside to eat
their food. Kaelo now wished he hadn?t eate n his chips on the bus, as he only had a
sandwich and drink now. He did have some mo ney, and he went to the tuck shop to buy
some Astros . The shop had posters of the planets a nd some booklet s , but he didn?t have
enough money to buy these. On his way back out side, Kaelo saw some other ?exhibits? in
88
the hall he hadn?t notice d before . He called Ross over and they picked up Coke cans from a
table. Each one was a differ e n t weight, and they were labell ed with the names of planets
and the Moon. The ?Jupit e r ? can was very heavy, while ?Plut o ? was very light. Was this to
do with the size of the plane t or was it th at Pluto was very far from the Earth?
Why?s Pluto so light? Kaelo asked Ross.
I dunno. Probly an alien drank all the coke!
They both laughed. There wasn?t anything explai ning what the Coke cans were for, and if
there had been Kaelo probably wouldn?t have read it anyway.
Copyright ? Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory
Figure 4.7 Coke cans and gravity
Kaelo then saw four bathroom scales on the floor, marked Earth , the Moon, the Sun and
Jupite r . On the Moon scale he only weighe d about 8.5 kilogra ms , while on the Earth scale
he weighed 52 kg, which he thought was about right. He weighed 132 kg on Jupiter and
1400 kg on the Sun, which was weird! Kaelo reme m b e r e d that the Jupite r Coke can had
been heavy.
Hey, you?re lighter on the Moon because it?s closer to the Earth said
Ross.
No, it?s not that. It?s because th e Moon has no gravity, that?s why.
Kaelo chatte d about it with Ross, and they decide d that it was some th i n g to do with
gravity. They knew gravity on the Moon was low, in fact if asked, they would probably
both have said that people float on the Moon. Now it looked like gr avity on Jupiter was
high and it was humung o u s on the Sun. Ross coul dn? t really unders t a n d this as he thought
89
both Jupiter and the Sun were made out of gas, so how could they have a lot of gravity ?
They both went away a bit puzzle d from the scale s , but with the im pression that gravity
was different on different planets and the Sun.
Kaelo also saw a ga me-t y p e exhibi t called ?Cosmi c Pinbal l - Can you make a comet crash
into Jupite r ? ? Kaelo slid a ball beari ng (repres e n t i n g the comet) around a funnel
(rep re s e nt i ng the sola r syst e m) that gets incr easi n g l y steep towards th e centr e (repr e se n t i n g
the Sun). The trick is to ?orb it? the comet around the bowl so that it is captured by a
depressi o n (signif y i n g Jupiter ) . If you get it wrong the comet will be drawn by (actual)
gravity towards the hole in the centre and fall through it. Kaelo tried this a few times and
manage d to hit Jupite r twice, but he didn?t tr y and reflect on what the exhibit represe n t e d ,
he just treat ed it as a game.
Copyright ? Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory
Figure 4.8 Cosmic Pinball
4.2.5 Taking the Solar Sy stem for a Walk
T h e whole class joine d toget h e r after break, and sat down in the hall toget h e r for a talk by
anothe r educat o r called Musi. He starte d by showing the students photographs and models
of all the plane t s in the solar system, each of which was mounted on a stand. Musi
expla i ne d that these were scale model s of the real planets, and that they had been reduced
four billion times. Kaelo didn?t really know what that meant, but it sounded quite
impre s s i v e . Musi then talke d brief l y about th e Sun and gave a few facts about each of the
90
planet s in turn, from Me rcur y to Pluto. Kaelo knew some of wh at Musi was saying , as they
had cover e d each of the plane t s in class , such as the large s t , smal l e s t , clos e st to and
furthes t from the Sun. For Kaelo, the most intere s t i n g part of the talk was the bit about the
asteroi d s , and how one day an as tero i d might collid e with Eart h. He was fascin at e d to hear
that one had crashed near Pretor ia hundreds of thousands of y ears ago, as well as another
to the South of Gauten g , and that it may have cause d all the miner a l s that were being
mined now. Kaelo ? s mi nd wande r e d a bit, and he thought of that film where there was a
rock smashing into the Earth, causing floods and all the people runn ing to the mountains.
He quite liked the idea of te rribl e devast a t i o n ? he wondere d what he?d have done if it
happene d to him?
Copyright ? Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory
Figure 4.9 Taking the Solar System for a walk: the Sun
H i s mind jerke d back to heari n g Musi speaki n g again. Another fact th at struck Kael o was
that Jupit e r had about sixty moons ; he could n ? t really believe that was possible . One of his
classma t e s asked whethe r it could ever be da y on Jupiter with so many moons orbiting the
planet. Kaelo though t this was an odd questio n , but Musi explain e d pati en t l y to the studen t
that it wasn? t the Moon that cause d night , but the sunlig h t fallin g on the planet as it rotate d .
The class asked Musi lots of ot her questi o n s during th e talk, especi a l l y a bout the asteroid s ,
Jupite r and Pluto.
91
Musi then hande d each plane t to a studen t , and took the whole class outsid e , saying
that the solar system could do w ith some exercise, so they should take it for a walk. Just
outside the hall Musi got a stude nt to place the Sun on its sta nd. He told the class that the
model was reduced four billion times from rea lit y , and said that they would need to pace
the distanc e from the sun to each of the clos er planets . They set up the Mercury stand 20
paces from the Sun, while Venus and Eart h were placed 36 and 50 paces respect i v e l y.
Kaelo didn?t pay much attentio n to these dist ances, but he was carrying Mars, and he knew
that he had to pace 27 steps from Earth . He set up the Mars stand and looke d back towar d s
the Sun. Although he hadn?t fully understo o d what Musi had said about the four billion,
Kaelo though t there mus t be an awful lot of space in space. The pl anet s (big though they
appear up close) were tiny in relat i on to the Sun and sitti n g at enor mo u s dista n c e s from
each other . He would have thoug h t about it for a bit longe r , but the class was now chant i ng
?15-16 - 1 7 ? as they paced the asteroi d belt beyond Mars. Wh en they reached Jupiter, 190
paces from Mars, Musi said that they needed to stop, as the planet s beyon d were too far to
pace. Kaelo couldn ? t believ e that Pluto woul d be about 1.5 km from the Sun. He looked
towar d s the horiz o n and tried to imagi n e that this dista n ce repre s e n t e d the size of the solar
system, with these tiny models repres e n t i n g th e plane t s . When Musi said that the neare s t
star (Alpha Sen, or someth i n g like that) w ould be 10,000 km away on this scale it almost
hurt his brain just to think about it, so Kaelo ran into the bu ilding when Musi said they?d
now be having a slide show. On the way, Kaelo punched Ross on the arm.
4.2.6 Landing on the Moon
T h e room for the slide show was cool and dar k, and Kaelo got a seat at the back with a
group of his friends. Daisy began by asking que stions: ?Who was the first man in space? ?
?Who was the first man on the Moon? ?
Kaelo didn?t know the answer to the firs t one, but shouted out ?Mark Shuttwer t h ?
to the second , as did ma ny of his class ma t e s . Daisy said that while Mark Shutt l e w o rth was
the first Sout h Africa n into space, it was an American called Neil Arms tron g who was the
first man on the Moon.
When Daisy asked who wants to be the s econd South African into space, the class
called out ?Me! Me!? Daisy quickl y chose a small boy called Titus, and said ?Today I?ll
take Titus, and I?ll take anot her tomorr o w ? . She went on to say ?OK, he?s been trained , can
he go dressed in uniform?? Th e classe d chorus e d ?No!?
92
Why not?
He?ll bounce
There ? s a specia l suit
For protect i o n
Titus then dress e d in a white overa l l , with a NASA logo, and Daisy some ti me s
referred to him as Titus Shuttlew o r t h or Tito Ar mstrong. She then suggested he would
need boots, ?Why? ?
Copyright ? Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory
Figure 4.10 The Second South African in Space
? S o that he doesn?t float?. Dais y said that the gravity on the Moon is one sixth that of the
Earth, and that he needs some th i n g heavy to keep him on the ground . This fitted with
Kaelo?s own idea that people float on the Moon, and that they need to be held down with
somethi n g heavy. Titus then donned rubber boots as well as a pair of gloves. Again, Daisy
asked the class why he would need gloves, and settled on th e idea of protection against
extreme s of hot and cold. She then handed Titu s a helme t to wear, a nd asked the class why
he would need one.
No atmos p h e r e .
Dangerou s gases.
?were ideas offered, and Kaelo heard Dais y saying that the helmet was needed to
protec t his head from the Sun?s rays and extr eme s of temperat u r e . Finally, Titus was given
93
an ?oxygen tank? (which Kaelo could see was just a plastic 2 litre Coke bottle) and was
told he had a microp h o n e inside the helmet as there is no air in space, and that sound
cannot travel.
Daisy then introduced a slide show, saying that Titus had taken the photographs
during his trip to the Moon. K aelo saw a series of photographs projected on to the screen,
and Daisy quest i o ne d the class as each one was shown. Some of them, such as the
photog r a p h s of the Saturn 5 rocket , the Earth from space and the Moon from space didn?t
make much impres s i o n on Kaelo, but when it ca me to the first steps taken on the Moon he
paid more attent i o n . He reme mb e r e d he had heard the phrase ?One small step for Man, one
giant leap for mankin d ? before and could now unders t a n d what it was talkin g about when
he saw the black and white photos of the as tron a u t s walki n g on the Moon?s surfa c e . Daisy
said that the Moon was like a desert: it has no water, also no air, and although there is soil
it is not fertil e , and temper a t u r e s are so ex treme that you can?t grow anything . Kaelo was
surpr i s e d to see what Daisy calle d a ?luna r buggy vehicl e ? which the astrona u t s used to
explo r e the surfa c e . Danie l sugge s t e d ?Their vehicl e help them to not float. Maybe their
vehicle have gravity? and everybod y laughed, though Kaelo wasn?t sure why. Daisy ended
by showing a footprint in the dust of the Moon, and asked if it is going to stay there
foreve r . ?Yes? they chorus e d , and Daisy emphas i s e d that there is no wind to blow it away,
no water to wash it away and no weathe r . It would stay ther e unless a meteorite hits it.
Kaelo wasn?t so intere s t e d in the last few phot os , which showed the sp ace ship returni n g to
Earth and landing in the sea. The lights were then switched on and cl ass then asked a few
questio n s before they went ou tside . Kaelo was getting a bit restless by this time, and was
pleased to be back in the open air.
4.2.7 The Telescope and Control Room
O u t s i d e , Musi stood the class in front of th e telescope. Kaelo was amazed how big it was.
From where they had been at the Visitors? Cent re it hadn?t looked so large. To start with,
Kaelo listen e d to Musi, and heard that the te lescop e once monitore d Apollo missions to the
Moon, and that it was the only one of its size in Africa . As he was talkin g , the dish began
to move, and Musi explain e d that it is because they are studying stars. Now Kaelo wasn?t
quite sure about this, as it was daytime, and he knew that we see stars at night. He was
pleas e d that one of the class asked the quest i o n in his mind: ?How can it see stars in the
daytime ? ? Musi explain e d that the dish was lis tening to the sound that stars make, and that
94
the sound will bounce on the dish into a receiv e r . They stayed outsi d e for anothe r 10
minutes or so, and Musi answere d lots of other questi o n s from the class while Kaelo
drifted to the edge of th e group with Ross and they ch atted about other things.
Copyright ? Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory
Figure 4.11 The radio telescope at HartRAO
T h e class was then usher e d into the build i n g ne xt to the dish and K aelo was excite d to see
lots of elect r o n i c equipme n t with light s flashi n g , rathe r like in a scienc e ficti o n movie . In
fact he was so overwhe l me d that he didn?t real ly listen much to what he was told in the
short time they spent there . Th en Musi played a tape whic h sounded like someone beating
a drum, and said that this is what some star s sound like. Kaelo then realise d that the big
dish was someho w heari n g stars rathe r than seeing them, so he now underst o o d how the
dish could be used in the daytime .
It wasn?t long before they were back in the sunshi n e and walkin g back to the
visit or s ? centr e . As they walke d with Dais y and Musi, some of the very keen student s
carried on asking questions. Kael o had one or two he would ha ve liked to as k, but he got
talki n g with Ross, and didn? t reall y get the ch anc e to do so. In the visit or s ? centr e they sat
aroun d for a short time, then the class monit o r gave a vote of thank s to Kate, Musi and
Daisy for showing them round the site. Kaelo join ed in the clapping enth usiastically, as he
had really enjoye d being there.
95
4.2.8 After the visit
T h e trip back to school passe d quite quickly for Kaelo, a nd although they sang songs and
messe d aroun d on the bus he felt quite tired . He caught the minibu s ta xi from school and
rushed home to tell his mother what they had done at HartRAO. His mother listened
patie nt l y as the words tumbl e d from his m out h: pumpin g the rocket s , spinni n g on the
turntab l e , picking up Coke cans, talking through the whisper dishes, hearing stars
drummi ng and seeing the big dish moving. Af ter the evening meal he watched some
televis i o n and went to bed ener vated, but sti ll quite excite d .
Over the weekend, Kaelo thought about the trip from time to time, and wonde r e d
wheth e r he might ask his fathe r to take hi m back to HartR A O some t i me . But his fath e r
always seemed to be so busy, even at weeken ds , that he wasn? t sure wheth e r to or not. On
Monday, back at school, Mrs. Kathrada talked to the class about the trip , and said that they
ought to carry on studyi n g about space, and she gave them a piece to read about Neil
Ar mstrong?s first footprint on the Moon. Kaelo like d this, as he could re late the article to
what he had seen on the slide show at HartR AO. However, Kaelo had to be a bit careful
around Karabo, who hadn?t been able to go on the trip. Kaelo held back talking about the
trip too mu ch, so that Karab o would n ? t feel bad about it. During the week, Mr. Lelliot t
came back and all the studen t s who had been on the visit went to an empty classr o o m with
him. Mr. Lelli ot t gave the stude nt s the spide r diagr a m each one had compl e t e d befor e the
trip, and Kaelo was pleased to be able to add to his, as well as cross out 1 or 2 things that
he now decide d were not right. In fact Kaelo ha d so much to add that he wrote some things
on the back of the sheet . Later on Mr. Lelli ot t asked the same students he had seen before
the trip to speak with him again, but as before, Kaelo wasn?t one of them.
Over the next few weeks they didn?t do anyth i ng relat e d to the trip in class either
with Mr. Maoto or any of the other teacher s , and the visit sl owl y faded from Kaelo ? s mind.
One day, when he happene d to see the televi sion news his father wa s watching, there was a
report of a Chinese astrona u t going into sp ace and orbiti n g the Earth. Kaelo starte d
chattering to his father about how they had seen pictures like this at HartRAO and his
father appe ared quite interest e d . But then ther e was a programme that his father wanted to
watch in peace , and Kaelo left the room to do some homew o r k . Over the next mont h s the
visit faded furth e r in Kaelo ? s me mor y , and in January he started grade 8 at the high school
near to Balfou r Forest . Howeve r , he did find that even over the next year, he was remi nded
from ti me to time abou t the visi t , by scho o l w o r k topic s (in Geogra p h y ) by occasi o n a l items
96
on the televi s i o n and in talki n g with his friends. For Kaelo, th e relat i v e l y brief visit had
made a lastin g impre s s i o n .
4.3 Discussion
Like Falk and Dierking?s (2000 ) descri p t i o n s of museum vi s its, this narrative shows what
school childr e n experi e n c e at the Harteb e e s t h o e k Radio Astrono my Observa t o r y . While
Kaelo ? s expe r i e nc e s were a compos i t e of what the whole group experie n c e d , each event
describ e d was based on data from my study that involve d indivi d u a l st udents. It is worth
noting here some of the experi e n c e s , how they re la t e to theme s in the liter a t u re revi ew, and
how they are drawn from the data gathered in the study, ma ny of which will be described
in subsequ e n t chapter s . Five issues are describ e d here: studen t miscon c e p t i o n s ; socio-
e c o n o mi c const r a i n t s on museu m visit s ; inade q uate preparation; inappropriate follow-up;
and enjoym e n t .
First, Kaelo was present e d with quite a lo t of informa t i o n about astron o m y , and the
narrat i v e shows that he entere d the centre with sever al misco n c e p t i o ns . I will illus t ra t e this
with three vignet t e s from Kaelo? s story, and show also how the centre either change d or
reinfor c e d his ideas .
? Kaelo originally thought that the Sun is the biggest star, but the explanation he was
given together with the anal ogy of the distance of trees de monst r a t e d to him that the
Sun only appears big because it is close. In this case the explana t i o n by the educato r
appeared to change Kaelo?s underst a n d i n g of the Sun in re lation to stars. Data for
this observa t i o n was gathere d from student s who changed their opinion that ?the Sun
is the bigges t star? to ?the Sun is the close st star? in thei r pre- and post-vi s i t
interv i e w s . Althou g h it is likely that in some cases they just reme mbe r e d this as a
fact, in other cases the stude nt explai n e d that their unders t a n d i n g of star distanc e in
relatio n to the Sun had changed .
? K a e l o and Ross had severa l miscon c e p t i o n s about gravit y demons t r a t i n g a limite d
unders t a n di n g of it: they though t there was no gravit y on the Moon and that the Sun
or Jupite r would not have gravit y as they are made of gas. By interacting with the
Coke can exhibit and the gravity scales Kaelo and Ross came away with sligh t l y
changed knowledg e of gravity: that grav ity is differe n t on diffe r e nt plane ts .
However, the gravity exhibits at HartRAO were not thems e l v e s suffi c i e nt to resul t
in a major shift in their unde rsta n d i n g of gravity. Some interve n t i o n by an educato r
97
was necessary to explain what the displays represe n t e d . Althou g h there were several
explanat i o n s of other exhibits as describe d in the narrat i v e the centre did not addre ss
gravit y as a central issue. In fact dur ing the Moon landings slide show some
students ? concepti o n s of gravity were re inforced, by the presenter suggesting that
heavy boots need to be worn, and not dispel li n g the suggesti o n that they are needed
to prevent the wearer from floatin g .
? T h e narrativ e does not show us what K aelo?s percepti o n of space was, although
many studen t s in their Pers ona l Meaning Maps describ e d it as empty , lacki n g air
and water. The descrip t i o n of Kaelo?s expe rience of ?taking th e solar syste m for a
walk? tries to demon s t r a t e that this activi t y did indee d have at least some effec t on
his unders t a n d i n g of the emptin e s s of space. The data for this claim was gather e d by
watchi n g and listen i n g to studen t s as th ey paced out the distan c e betwe e n the
planet s . There was genuin e amaze me n t that the Sun could be so small and far away
by the time stude n t s reach e d Mars, in contr a st to Musi? s stat eme n t that the model s
are reduc e d four billi o n time s from their actual size. This figure appeared to be
incompr e h e n s i b l e to most student s , who never referr e d to it in their subseq u e n t
inter v i e w .
The miscon c e p t i o ns demons t r a t e d by Kaelo were si mil a r to those reco rde d in the liter a t ur e
regar di n g the Sun, stars, gravi t y and space (Bail e y & Slater , 2003) . Altho u g h museu m
resear c h e r s are usuall y carefu l not to make claims about subs tantial change in visitors?
knowledge as a result of a vis it to a museum, the evide n c e fr om Kaelo?s narrative suggests
that there were some shift s in his knowl e d g e of astrono my and concept i o n of gravity and
space .
Second l y , the narrati v e brings out a contex t u a l issue regardi n g the visit. As
discuss e d in section 3.5, only student s whose parent s could a ffor d to pay for the trip
actual l y took part in it. Out of a total of 75 studen t s in the two grad e 7 class e s at Balfo u r
Forest School, only 37 (49%) completed cons ent for ms and 30 (40%) went on the trip. The
percen t a g e s of studen t s who par tic i p a t e d in the trip were mu ch larger in the other school s
as they were mostly private schools where th e socio- e c o n o mi c status of the parents was
likely to be much higher . Howeve r , Balfou r Fo rest School is more repres e n t a t i v e of the
majori t y of school s in South Af rica , althou g h it too is privil e g e d , being locat e d in a former
?white? suburb of Johannes b u r g . Kaelo?s mother ? s rema rk , that the local townsh i p school
was ?not doing well?, is a remi nd e r to the reader of this fact.
98
Thir d l y , the narrat i ve demo n s t r a t e s the limit e d extent to which Kaelo and his
class ma t e s were prepa r e d for the visit . In his school they did no classro o m prepara t i o n for
the visit, and in most schools the students were currently st udying another topic in science
(or geography in the case of Lourdes Girls Sc hool). No preparation for the visit was the
case in all schools except Bokamos o , whose scie nc e club visited HartRA O . Six individ u a l s
acros s the whole study did some person a l prepa r a t i o n , and gave specifi c exampl e s of what
they did. There was so me evide nc e that indiv i d u a l s did the prepa r a t i o n becaus e they
wante d to ?impr e s s ? me with th eir knowle d g e , and my visit did have some effe c t in raisi n g
studen t s ? awaren e s s and the profile of the t opic . These issue s are discu s s e d under the
limit a t i o n s of the resea r c h in secti o n 9.8. The na rrati v e also notes that the student ? s science
teache r , Mr. Maoto, does not attend the visit with his student s , and instea d other teache r s
accompa n y the class. This too was a common o ccur r e n c e in my study, and is one of the
reason s I did not includ e teache r s in the study.
Fourt h l y , the issue of follo w - u p after th e visit. Kaelo?s narrative shows that a
teach e r did get the stude n t s to think about the trip by givi ng them a readin g about the
Moon landin g s . Howeve r , althou g h this is what was stated by the teache r , Kaelo did not
relate what Mrs. Kathra d a did with studen t s in her Englis h class when I asked him in the
intervie w , possibly because nothi ng was done in his science cl ass. No students worked on
astron o my betwe e n the time of the trip and wh en I visite d to inte rv i e w them, and this
varied from 1 to 35 days. What did happen after the visit was that Kaelo told his mothe r a
lot about what he had experi enced at HartRAO. Except for Nonkululeko, all st udents told
someon e , us uall y a me mber of their fa mily of the experi e n c e s they had during their visit.
This question was a useful method of elici t i n g what stude nt s found excit i n g or impor t a nt
for them at the visit . Ther e is subst a nt i al evide n ce in the litera t u r e that teach e r s fail to use
school visit s to museums as effec t i v e l y as they might (e.g. Gri ffin, 2004; Storksdieck,
2004), and exhort a t i o n s from resear c h e r s to corr ect this situati o n (e.g. Falk and Dierkin g
2000). The narrativ e shows that th ere is considerable potential for teachers to work with
their classes after a visit, both from the viewpoi nt of learning about subject matter as well
as using the visit as a focus for other work, in languag e classes for exampl e .
Last l y , it is clear from the narr at i ve that Kaelo regarde d the trip as an enjoya b l e
event . I showe d in Chapt e r 2 that the resear c h litera t u r e on museums and scienc e centre s
has tended to dichot o mi s e fun and learni n g , with several opinion pieces decrying the
hands- o n experi e n c e as being ?minds - o f f ? (P arkyn, 1993; Sanders, 1998). Kaelo however,
99
appea r e d to learn some t h i n g about astro n o my as well as have fun at HartRA O . As Falk and
collea g u e s have demons t r a t e d (Falk et al . , 1998; Griffin, 2004) and I show in subsequent
chapt e r s , educa t i o n and enter t a i n me n t are not li kely to be on a contin u u m , but comp le me n t
each other in a scienc e centr e envir on me n t .
Kaelo?s narrati v e describ e s experie n c e s that are common to many South African
learn e r s on school visit s to museum s . These include difficulties with funding and lack of
prepar a t i o n for the visit, dise n g a g e me n t of teache r s and the didact i c nature of the
experie n c e during the visit, and a lack of follo w - u p after the visit when back at school . The
narrati v e also demonst r a t e s that in a few cases a student?s idea about a scientific concept
might be comple t e l y change d as a result of th e visit . For examp l e K aelo ? s reali sa t i o n that
the Moon?s phases are caused by sunlight fa lling on different amounts of the Moon?s
surfa c e , rathe r than his previ o u s idea that the phases are caused by the Earth? s shadow .
Howeve r , they also demons t r a t e that previo us l y held misco n c e p t i o ns can remai n unalt e red
or be further reinforced during the visit . For examp l e Kaelo ? s id ea that in order not to float
on the Moon one needs to wear heavy boots. It also demo ns t r a t e s that the majori t y of
learni n g is likel y to be small and incre me n t a l , a notio n that is explor e d more fu lly in
Chapters 6 and 7.
4.4 A visit to the Johannesburg Planetarium
Welcome to the Johannesburg Planetarium , to the Wits Un iversity. I?m
Caroline. I?m doing a show for you today. What are we going to look at
today?
S p a c e !
Star s !
The Moon!
Plane t s!
O kay I?ve got bad news for you guys. Your teachers booked you into the
solar system show. Okay so what is in the solar system? Planets, the sun.
How many stars in the solar system?
Student 1: Millions.
Caroline No sorry
Student 2: One.
Caroline: One. Okay. So tough luck. We can do 8 000 stars with our
projector here, but we?re booked into the solar system show.
K i t s o was final l y sitti n g in th e rather uncomfortable seats of the Johanne s b u r g Planeta r i u m,
lookin g up at the dome which was covere d with st ars. She had been lookin g forwar d to this
100
visit for some ti me, so now what was the pl an et a ri u m lady talki n g a bout? Had there been
some sort of mistake in their booking ?
That?s one way we can get around that. If we?re going to lo ok at the solar
system we might as well l ook at where the solar syst em fits in, in space and
we are doing solar system here but we ?ll start by looking at the stars.
Figure 4.12 Zeiss star projector in the planetarium
O K , that sounded better, and Kitso realise d that maybe Car oline had been joking. Kitso
had always been interes t e d in the stars and planets , though she wa sn?t that keen on
geograph y (which is where the topic fitted in at her school ) . Kitso atten de d Lourd e s Girls
School in the western suburbs of Johanne s b u r g, and was unaware that the astronomy topic
had now been changed in the cu rri cu l u m to fall withi n the new Natur al Scien ce s learn i n g
area. She just knew it as part of geogr a p h y . She had heard from friends that the
planeta r i u m was really cool, that she would actual l y see the planets and stars and stuff.
Caroline: I just want to start about, w ith those particular stars. Does
anyone know the names of any of those stars up there that you can see now?
Student: I can see Orion
Caroline: Okay, right. Southern Cr oss. Can you see the Southern Cross
there?
Students: [Some say yes, others say no].
Caroline: No? Some of you can. Yeah. Here it is.
101
Kitso had no idea of the names of any stars. She just knew them as stars, that they
consist e d of burning gases, were small objects (say the size of the Earth ) and far away.
People looked at the sky thousands of years ago, it?s only in the last couple
hundred years that we have the tools for understanding the universe. But we
know that people have always been intere sted in it, mainly because they gave
names to things. That one there Betelgeux, which is an Arabic word that
means the armpit of the giant. (Laughter) Look here is the giant, his belt ?
these three stars in a row - What are they called? Three sisters some people
called them. Some people called them Orion?s Belt and some people used to
call them dikolobe. What does that me an? Pigs. Ja. So that?s Tswana for
pigs.
K i t s o could see what Caroli ne meant, as she wa s pointin g out the stars with a sort of light-
p o i n t e r torch . Kitso had some vague me mor y of being at her grand mo t h e r ? s house sitti n g
round a fire at night, and one of her cousin s mentio n i n g dikolobe in the sky. She wondere d
if any of the really bright stars had names, but Carolin e was moving on???.
Nowadays we can do more than just nam ing stars and looking at them. We
actually know what they are about and th e reason we could do that is we?ve
got better equipment. What?s that? That?s a telescope.
N o w Kitso saw a picture projec t e d on to the planet a r i u m dome. Wo w, this show wasn?t
just going to be about stars and space. Th ey?d be seeing ?real things ? too, like on TV.
Ja. That is quite a small telescope. It?s the kind of thi ng that people who?s
really into astronomy will go out and th ey?ll buy. Now the size of that we
know will be about 10, 15 centimetres wh ich means already that is about 400
times better than your eye.
Anyone know the name of South Africa?s big new telescope?
Students: SALT
Caroline: Yes, it is called SALT - Sout h African Large Telescope. It is
going into that building there, the bu ilding is finished, the telescope should
be finished some time next year. Ther e is one obvious thing you can do with
the telescope, you can see more. That makes people realise that the universe
is much bigger than we thought.
C a r o l i n e went on to explai n how astron o me r s look at the colour of stars, which helps them
work out the hotter ones (blue) and the cooler ones (red), and how you can use a sort of
spectru m of the stars to work our their composi t i o n . Kitso found this all a bit confusing. As
far as she was concer n e d stars were these l ittle dots in the sky, and just as she was
wonderi n g what they?d be like if you got close to one, Caroli n e did just that??.
So that particular star, bright stars in fact, are mainly hydrogen and a bit of
helium then a couple of other gases as well. A star is a ball of burning gas.
Right, so if you went up close to a star, about 150 million kilometres away
102
?.. What?s that?
Students: The sun.
Caroline: The sun. Yah, what is the sun? A star?
Students: Yes.
Caroline: It is the which star?
Students: The biggest!
Caroline: It is not the biggest star. The?
Students: Closest.
Caroline: Closest Thank you. It is the one that we live close to, it is not
bigger at least not of all the stars, it is a very ordinary type of star .
K i t s o heard Caroli n e talkin g , but she didn?t really take it in, as Caroli n e seemed to be
saying so many things : the Sun is 6000 degree s , UV-rays , X-rays, the ozone layer. Anyway
Kitso knew the sun is the biggest star. It?s obvious anywa y , as it?s much bigge r than the
other stars in the sky. Then a video fil m st arted playin g on the pl aneta r i u m dome , which
Caroli n e said was the Sun, taken with a special camera ? ? .
Now one thing to notice is that the sun is turning. Everything in the
Universe is spinning. If y ou look at the top where you can see it against the
black of space, you can see jets of gas being thrown off. If you ? just watch
and tell me if it goes away from the s un or back to the sun? It?s going back.
Right. So how does it pull it back? Gravity. Ja. The sun has about 28 times
as much gravity as the Earth which it? s useful. If it didn?t had enough gravity
it would just sort of blow itself apart from heat. He at makes things expand.
Gravity holds things like the sun togeth er. We wouldn?t have a star if it
wasn?t for gravity.
K i t s o though t the video was really cool. She knew a bit about gravit y : she knew that in
space there was a lot of gravit y, and that with a lot of gravity you could float around. She
tried to reconci l e what she knew with lots of gravity on the sun, and thought maybe
?.ugh , she couldn ? t reall y think about it, as a very big number then flashe d on to the
plane t a r i u m dome :
40,000,000,000,000 km
C a r o l i n e said that was the distan c e from the Sun to the neares t star: Alpha Centa u r i : 40
milli o n milli o n kilome t re s . Kitso wasn? t great at Maths and the numbe r on the dome was
mind-b o g g l i n g .
How far is it? How would you describe that?
Student: Far.
Far. Very, very far. Light years aw ay. Right the problem with a number
like that is no human being has ever experienced that number, not
physically, not themselves. You never had to walk that distance or travel
that distance. Our brains can?t real ly understand stuff that we haven?t
actually had to deal with physically.
103
Caroline then tried to make the distanc e to Alpha Centau ri more understandable by
compa r i n g it with the dista nc e acros s the solar syste m, which is 10 thous a n d milli on
kilome t r e s . She then sugge s t e d that if we could trave l across the solar syst e m in a very fast
rocket in one year (20 times faster than we can), then we can do a su m to show how long it
would take to reach the nearest star:
40,000,000,000,000
10,000,000,000
40,000,000,000,000
10,000,00 0,000
Which gives us 4000 years.
Okay, so if you could travel twenty tim es faster than what we can now then
you will be able to get from the Earth to the edge of the solar system in half a
year, then you travel for 3 999 years and you get to the to the first star.
What would you pass on the way? Noth ing. It would be the most boring
journey imaginable.
K i t s o found this a bit confusi n g . Even with Caroli n e ? s attempt to try and make the distan c e
unders t a n d a b l e , Kitso didn?t really identi f y with the ?years ? expl anation. She did though
reme mbe r the ?sound ? of the distan c e : forty milli o n milli on was quite easy to remembe r ,
even if she was not sure what it referr e d to. When she was asked later , she said it?s the
distanc e from the Earth to the Sun.
The next part of the planetarium show was about stars being born. Caroline pointed
out Orion?s cellpho n e (Kitso like d that idea - a cell phone in the stars) which was really a
nebula, or cloud of gas and dust. She then showed how the cloud is ?lumpy? and that
gravi t y pulls the gas and dust toget h e r until it become s hotte r and begin s to burn, for mi n g a
star. She then demon s t r a t e d this with a vi deo animat i o n of the forma ti o n of the solar
syste m, and stres se d that our solar syste m is plate- s h a p e d, with the sun in the middl e ,
surrou n d e d by the planet s . This didn?t really m ean much to Kitso . She though t of the solar
system as some sort of belt of planet s surr ounding the Earth, and so couldn?t relate what
Caroli n e was showin g to her own concep t of a so lar system . Kitso confus e d this furthe r in
her mind with a system of heatin g water by using a solar panel on the roof of her
neighb o u r ? s house. Wasn?t that a solar system?
Right, let me get closer to Mars. Yo u can see Mars in the evening sky now.
Have you all seen Mars?Those who have seen it was it easy to find?
Students: Yes.
It looks like a star, million kilometres away into space and it looks tiny but it
104
is very bright. Okay have a look at that sky there. Okay. Right, have a look
especially at these two here. Jupiter and Mercury.
Kitso was amazed. She didn?t realise that planet s were visi bl e in the night sky. OK they
weren? t very impres s i v e in size, as they looked like bright stars, but the fact th at they were
other worlds far out in space, and we could see them was reall y cool.
Right let?s go look for th e stars, but to see stars we are going to have to
speed up time now. then the sun will move across the sky. Okay, we will go
from there all the way across to that side and it will go underneath the
horizon there and the elephant will come and collect it and carry it all the
way around there and put it right there for tomorrow morning. (Laughter).
What?s really happening?
Students: The Earth is moving.
Caroline: The Earth is?
Students: Rotating.
Caroline: Rotating or spinning. The stars looking like they are moving over
in fact it?s just the Earth spinning.
K i t s o didn?t underst a n d what Carolin e was doi ng. As far as Kitso was concer n e d the sun
did move across the sky, as did the Moon at ni ght. She had never really noticed the stars
much. Carol i n e then got the class to use star ch arts to try and identif y the planets and some
specif i c stars . The idea of this was so that th e studen t s could use the chart at home and look
at the night sky, but Kitso got confused by th e chart, and how to hold it. She was also
confu s e d that East and West seeme d to be mi xed up, but she got a bit more intere s t e d when
Caroline pointed out some of the horoscop e constell a t i o n s ?
Let?s go now back to the Southern Cr oss and Antares, the heart of an
animal. It?s very well known. Right can you see a scorpion there? I mean
look at the shape and the si ze of this scorpion if I take it away you can then
see the sting at the end of the tail. This is Libra. Used to be part of the
Scorpion. There?s Virgo and you?ve got Leo down at that part of the sky
over there? Capricorn is just down he re. You?ve got Capricorn but the rest
of them you?ll have to wait ? okay you have to come back to the
planetarium in the summer for Taurus and in spring for Pisces.
Wow, this was really interesting! Kitso alwa ys looke d at her horosc o p e in her mother?s
magazi n e . She was a Le o, and now she could actual l y see the Leo stars in the sky. She
might try and use that star chart after all and see if she could make it out in the real sky,
though she knew that the street lights around he r home were reall y brigh t . What Kitso
didn?t notice was how Caroline was trying to point out that the st ar signs were the
conste l l a t i o n s throug h which the planet s and th e moon passed over the c ourse of the year.
105
How many planets?
Students: Nine
Nine okay that is not very helpful, th en move on from that if you actually
want to know what is going on in the solar system. Could anything be living
on other planets? It?s unlikely on Mercury and Venus. Why? Too hot.
C a r o l i n e then went throug h the planet s of the solar system, describi n g and showing slides
of each briefly in turn. The one that caught Kitso? s imagin a t ion was Mars. She saw that it
had ice caps, that it had been visite d by ma ny space craft , that it had mount a i n s , and
erosion channels which looked like they had been carved by water. She had never thought
about it befor e , but Kitso reali s e d that the planet s out there in th e solar system were
actuall y a bit like Earth, with ground and soil and stuff. She was disa ppointed to hear that
the temper a t u r e on Mars never really went abov e zero , as well as the fact that it took so
long to get there.
Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. They? re huge. They?ve made of gas.
You cannot live in a gas cloud. They ar e very far from the sun. They should
be really, really cold. Does anyone k now now how many moons Jupiter has?
Twenty something. Twelve. Sixteen.
Okay none of those are the correct answer . Let me just tell something if you
go and look in the books you will see that Jupiter has 16 Moons.
We put together a show about planets and about Jupiter and I think when we
started we were saying it had 51 moons. By the time the show finish about 2
months later ? we were up to 61 moons. So when anyone asks you how
many moons Jupiter has? So at le ast 61 is about the best answer.
There?s another of Jupiter?s moons. Th is one is called Europa because that
white stuff is ice.
There?s our Pluto. Right you were supposed to say ?what about Pluto??
We left out Pluto because no space craft has been there. So we don?t have a
decent picture. There?s the best pict ure of Pluto. They?re talking about
sending a space craft there next year.
K i t s o was really enjoying the pi ctures of the planets, and then suddenl y Carolin e said they
had run out of time.
O kay now, we?ll get it really dark bec ause actually the other thing I want to
show you is the Milky Way. The M ilky Way right now is going right over
your head more or less over there but we need a nice dark sky to see that
and then the other thing we have to do in a planetarium like this is play
music which has to be educational music. So this one is for the teachers.
This one is called the astronomy song.
A n d that was the best bit. Carol i ne speed e d up the stars spinni n g overhe a d , she made it as
dark as the darkest night a nd played the music loudly . Kits o thought she could watch this
106
for hours, and then sudden l y the lights came up a nd the class all start e d talking animatedly
as they walked out of the planetar i u m.
A few days later Kitso found her star char t crumpl e d up in her pocket. She did go
outsid e with it one evenin g , but it was cloudy and she didn?t try again. She did tell her
cousin about the trip, especia ll y the bit about the photos of Mars? surface, and how it looks
as though there is anothe r Earth up there somewh e r e . During break the follow i n g week
some girls from Grade 7 asked Kitso and he r friends how the trip had gone, and Kitso
explained how everything looke d so real. She also saw a brief clip from the News on
telev i s i o n which showe d a planet in the sola r syste m, but when the next item refer r e d to
Mount Ararat and that the ark in the Bible mi ght not have existe d in realit y , Kitso mixed
the two items in her mind, and didn?t see how one relate d to the other.
Over the subseq u e n t months , much of what Kitso had seen blurred together in her
mind, but she still reme mbe r e d the photog r a p h s of Mars and how cold it was in the
planet a r i u m!
4.5 Discussion
This narrative shows some of Kitso?s thoughts as she watched the planetarium
presentation, and is a composite pictu r e , based princi p al l y on inter vi ew s with stude n t s .
Althou g h Kaelo had a number of scienti f i c ideas before he visited HartRAO, Kitso?s
scient i f i c knowle d g e is conside r a b l y less, which result s in less learni n g and unders t a n d i n g
of what is being presented at the planetarium. Her idea s about the star s as relat i v el y smal l
(the size of the Earth), a nd the Sun being the biggest st ar did not change during the
presen t a t i o n , even though the educat o r specif i c a l l y refer r e d to it. Simila r l y , her na?ve ideas
about gravit y , the solar system and day and ni ght rema ine d unchang e d . Like Kaelo, Kitso
had no prepar a t i o n for the visit and no follo w- u p afterw a r d s (altho u g h her inter v i e w only 2
days after the visit did not allow mu ch time fo r this). Also, she talked to her cousin about
the trip, and discuss e d it with some othe r school students the fo llowing week, indicating
that aspect s of it had ma de an impres s i o n on her. In fact, the effect of the visit on Kitso was
more to do with emotio n s , the affect i v e aspec t of learni n g , than on cognit i ve chang e . This
is exami n e d in more detai l in Chapt e rs 7 to 9.
The aim of this chapt e r was to show the r eader what it is like to visit the two sites
throu g h the eyes of the parti c i p a n t s in the study. Althou g h ba sed on data collect e d during
observ a t i o n s of the school visi ts , and intervi e w s with the student s , it is necessa r i l y
107
subjec t i v e , in that I have chosen which scenes to highlig h t and which to omit. Howe ver , it
is preci s e l y the subje c t i v e natu re of the narra t i v e that allow s me to illust r at e , in an
ethnog r a p h i c style , impor t a n t point s which appea r to be commo n to many schoo l visit s , not
only in Johann e s b u r g but elsewh e r e . Severa l of these were ident i fi e d in Chapt e r 2, such as
the disen g a ge me n t of teach e r s and the types of learn i n g that occur in scienc e centre s. The
followi n g chapter s take a more objecti ve stance . Chapt er 5 shows the collec t i ve trend s in
learn i n g acros s the entir e data set from the study, while Chapte r s 6 to 8 examine what and
how individu a l students l earnt during their visit.
108
Chapter 5
5 An Analysis of Collective Learning
While Chapter 4 provided a narrative of what some students learnt in the
process of a visit to a science centre, this chapter examines what the complete
sample of students in my study learnt about astronomy during their visit to
either the Johannesburg Planetarium or Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy
Observatory visitors? centre. It attempts to answer research question one using
the concept of Big Ideas in scie nce as a framework for learning.
5.1 Introduction
O n e of the aims of my study was to examin e wh at the studen t s learnt from the visit to
either the Johannesburg Planetarium or Ha rteb e e s t h o e k Radio Astro n o my Obse r v a t o r y .
This chapter descri b e s and analyse s what the entire group of 34 student s collec t i v e l y learnt
from their visit . It demo n s t r a t e s that cogn it i v e learni n g of astron o my topics occurr e d at
differe n t levels across a range of student s .
The chapt er is divide d into the follo wi n g secti o n s:
? A descri p t i o n of the researc h sample and how the final 34 student s were selecte d
from the origina l 57 from whom data were collect e d .
? A reiteration of what I consider as learnin g in the context of the study
? T h e use of Big Ideas in astrono my as an organis i n g fra mewo r k for the analysi s of
student s ? learnin g
? What students collectively learnt from th eir visit to a study site, and how this
relat e s to the liter at u r e on basic astr onomy and learning in science centres.
? H o w Big Ideas are used with respec t to i ndividual learning in s ubsequ e n t chapter s .
5.2 The Research Sample
C h a p t e r 3 describ e s how I obtaine d the study sa mple of 145 Persona l Meanin g Maps fro m
student s in seven school s (inclu d i n g a p ilot school ) . Howeve r , only 57 student s were
inter v i e w e d both prior to and after their visit to one of the study sites , and inter v i e w s from
109
one of these schools were used as pilot data . During transcr i p t i o n of the data, and some
initial analys i s , I decided to exclude two of the schools from the full analysi s . The first of
these, Revela t i o n School , was exclude d beca u s e their visit to the planet a r i u m on 4
Septemb e r was follow e d almos t immed i a t e l y by their schoo l vacat i o n which lasted over
two weeks. Due to my absence from Johanne s b u r g later in Septemb e r , I was unable to
compl e t e their follo w - up PMMs and inter vi e w s until 9 Octobe r , 35 days after their visit .
The mean number of days after the visit when data was collected in the other four schools
used was five (SD: 5). The princi p a l aim of my study is to ascerta i n the learnin g that
happen s durin g and as a result of studen t s ? visit to the planet a r i u m, and I consid e r e d that
my follow-up data would likely have been influe n c e d by in tervening experiences, which
may not have necessa r i l y happen e d at school .
The other school exclud e d was St Augusti n e ? s School. In this ca se their visit to
HartR A O took place on day one of a school ?tou r ? lasti n g five days and organ i s e d by a
commer c i a l ?schoo l tours? compan y . I would not have had a probl e m with this, as it would
have been intere s t i n g to determi n e what had b een learnt from the HartRA O visit as part of
a longer tour involv i n g a consid e r a b l e num ber of new experi e n c e s . Howeve r , three
incid e n t s resul t e d in my decis i o n not to analy s e the data from this schoo l in detai l . The first
was that the school arrived ove r two hours late at HartRAO , potent i a l l y reduci n g the time
they would have for the visit. The second in cide n t was that the ?tour guide? accompa n y i n g
the classe s decid e d that they needed to le ave at midda y , thus cutti n g their visit even
shorter , with the result that they spent only sevent y minute s at HartRAO , compar e d with
the 3 to 4 hours that other schoo l s spent . The teacher s accompa n y i n g the student s later
expl a i ne d to me that this was out of their hands, th at they reach e d thei r dest i na t i o n for the
day unnece s s a r i l y early, and should have spent at least a furth e r two hours at HartRAO .
The third incident was at St Augustine?s School on 17 October, 11 days after their visit,
when I had arran g e d for the stude n t s to re peat their PMM and be interviewed by me.
Unfortunately this day was ?Civvies Day 1 1 ? , and the stude nts were in a genera l l y playf u l
mood. In order for them to comp lete their PMM, they were as ked by their teac her to stop
what they were doing (and apparen t l y en joyin g ; it was not nor ma l school work) and
compl e t e their PMM. I noted at the time that most of the students tended to rush through
the PMM to get back to the task they were doing before being inte rrup t e d . Further, during
11 A Civv ie s Day in South Afric a n scho o ls is a day on which the unif or m code is relax ed , and stud en ts can
wear whatever clothing they like. It is of ten associated with an even t or festiv al.
110
the inter vi ew s with each stude n t , sever al of th em appea r e d distr a c t e d , and wante d to get
away to join the other stude n t s as part of the day?s festi v i t i e s . For these reason s I decide d
not to use the data from this school, as I considered it would be collected under very
differ e n t circums t a n c e s compar e d w ith data from the other school s .
In excluding these two schools, the fina l number of students interviewed was 34,
from four schools, and I have summarised de mogr a p h i c and other releva n t informa t i o n
about them (Tabl e 5.1).
Table 5.1 Demographic information on sample of students
Fictitious
Name
Student code School Age Gender Grade Home
Language
Population
Group
S ib ong ile scf06 Lourd e s 14 F 8 isiZu lu Blac k
Susan scf08 Lourd e s 13 F 8 English White
Lara scf10 Lourd e s 14 F 8 English White
Helen scf11 Lourd e s 14 F 8 English White
Sarah scf12 Lourd e s 14 F 8 English White
Fati ma scf15 Lourd e s 14 F 8 English Colou r ed
Kitso scf17 Lourd e s 15 F 8 seTs w an a Blac k
Anto n ia scf19 Lourd e s 13 F 8 English White
Sipho swo05 Balf o ur Fore s t 13 M 7 isiZu lu Blac k
Zane le swo06 Balf o ur Fore s t 12 F 7 isiZu lu Blac k
Bhek iw e swo07 Balf o ur Fore s t 13 F 7 isiZu lu Blac k
Mpho swo14 Balf o ur Fore s t 13 F 7 seSo th o Blac k
Banya n a swo20 Balf o ur Fore s t 12 F 7 seTsw an a Blac k
Ntob e ko swo22 Balf o ur Fore s t 13 F 7 isiZu lu Blac k
Nonk u lu le ko swo26 Balf o ur Fore s t 12 F 7 isiZu lu Blac k
Doug las swo29 Balf o ur Fore s t 14 M 7 tshiV en d a Blac k
Julius swo36 Balfour Forest 13 M 7 sePedi Black
Neo swo42 Balf o ur Fore s t 13 F 7 sePed i Blac k
Batsile swo53 Balf o ur Fore s t 14 M 7 seTsw an a Blac k
Thap iso swo59 Balf o ur Fore s t 13 F 7 isiZu lu Blac k
Phillip swo69 Balfo ur Forest 12 F 7 sePed i Black
Brend a swo70 Balf o ur Fore s t 13 F 7 sePed i Blac k
Tlotlo tsw02 Boka mo s o 13 F 8 seTs w an a Blac k
Botho tsw04 Boka mo s o 13 F 8 seTs w an a Blac k
Fane tsw08 Boka mo s o 13 M 8 seTsw an a Blac k
Nnan ik i tsw15 Boka mo s o 12 F 8 seTs w an a Blac k
Paul vho0 2 Achiev e me n t 13 M 7 English White
Vick y vho0 6 Achiev e me n t 13 F 7 English White
Ther esa vho0 9 Achiev e me n t 13 F 7 English White
Judy vho1 0 Achiev e me n t 12 F 7 English Colou r ed
Caro lin e vho1 1 Achiev e me n t 13 F 7 English White
Rich a r d vho1 2 Achiev e me n t 13 M 7 English White
Ross vho1 3 Achiev e me n t 12 M 7 seSo th o Blac k
John vho1 6 Achiev e me n t 15 M 7 English White
L o u r d e s Girls School visite d the planeta r i u m, while the other three school s visite d
HartRAO. Of the 34 students, 74% (25) were gi rls , 62% (21) were bl ack and 6% (2) were
111
colour e d . The white and colour e d studen t s al l spoke English at home , while the black
students spoke either isiZulu (7), seTswana (7 ), sePedi (4), seSoth o (3) or tshiVe nda (1
stude n t ) at home. 13 stude n t s (38%) of the tota l sampl e state d that they spoke a second
langu a g e at home, the commo n e s t ones being Eng lis h (7 student s ) and Afrikaa n s (4). 22 of
the students (64%) were in grade 7, wh ile the remain i n g 12 were in grade 8.
5.3 Learning in Science Centres
I n Chapte r 2 I describ e d how learnin g can be underst o o d in the contex t of a school visit to
a museu m or scien c e centr e . I stipu l a t e d a defi ni t i o n which I repeat here to set the scene for
the breadt h of learni ng the students show.
Learning is a process of active engage me n t with experie n c e . It is what
people do when they want to make se nse of the world. It may involve the
develop me n t or deepeni n g of skills, knowle d g e , unders t a n di n g ,
aware n e s s , value s , ideas and feelin g s or an increa se in the capaci t y to
reflec t . Effec t i v e learn i ng leads to ch ange , devel o p me n t and the desire to
learn more (Braund & Reiss, 2004 p. 5)
While few people would disagr e e with this , the idea of learnin g as concept u a l
understa n d i n g or conceptu a l cha nge is held in high regard by many South African teachers
(e.g. Hlatshw a y o & Stanton , 2005; Potgiet e r , Engelbre c h t & Harding, 2006). From the
point of view of many inte re s t e d partie s , from teache r s to funding source s aiming to
increa s e the quali t y of scien c e and mathe ma t i c s progr a m me s , learni n g invol v e s an incr e a s e
in knowle d g e and unders t a n d i n g on the part of the learne r . If studen t s go on a visit to a
scien c e centr e , it might be expec t e d that th ey should improv e their knowledge in the area
in which the scien c e cent r e speci al i se s . In orde r to compa r e this ?expe c t e d learni n g ? with a
wider view of learni n g such as that expre ss e d by Braund and Reiss, I develop e d a set of
categor i e s of learnin g using the notion of Big Ideas to define key concept s in basic
astro n o my for my study .
T h e notio n of Big Ideas come s from the Ameri c a n Assoc i a t i on for the
Advanc e me nt of Scienc e ? s (AAAS) Projec t 2061 which develo p e d what it regard s as
topics of import a n c e for liter a c y in scien c e , mathe ma t i c s and techn o l o gy . These theme s
(importa n t concepts ) have been assigned be nchmarks (ideas and skills) which the AAA S
conside r s all student s should be exposed to during their schoolin g as far as grade 12
(Ameri c a n Assoc i a t i o n for the Advanc e me n t of Science, 1993). Project 2061 is a refor m
initi a t i v e start e d in 1985 to improv e scien c e literac y among United States citizen s , and
takes its name from the year in which Halle y ? s Come t will next be visib l e from Earth . In
112
their Atlas of Science Literacy (Ameri c a n Assoc i at i o n for th e Advancement of Science,
2001) the Project 2061 develop e r s map out differe n t aspect s of science , such as the Nature
of Scienc e , the Physic al Settin g and the Human Organ i s m, and ident i fy clust e r s and stran d s
of scien c e withi n these categ or i e s . Their inten t i o n is to provid e a se ries of strand maps
which educators such as teachers and curr ic u l u m devel o p e r s can use to locat e the
benchma r k s for science literac y within the bi gger picture . However , I was rece nt l y made
aware by a planet a r i u m direc t o r that when th e nationa l standar d s were drafted, astronome rs
were only involve d at a late stage, and that ?the astron o my portio n s were added as a kind
of afterth o u g h t ? (Jim Beaber pers. comm.).
Inste a d of the term ?theme ? or ?topi c ? the AAAS has started informal l y using the
term Big Idea (Americ a n Associ a t i o n for the Adva nceme nt of Science, 2005), a notion
which I find useful to identif y key concept s for my study. The notion of Big Ideas has also
been used by Loughr a n and collea g u e s in th eir develo pme n t of teache r s ? Pedago g i c a l
Content Knowledg e (PCK), but they use the te rm to refer to scien c e ideas that teach e r s
regard as being import a n t in the topic be ing studied (Loughran, Mulhall & Berry, 2004).
Also, Big Ideas should not be confused w ith Big Science , a term coined by Alvin
Weinberg in 1961 to refer to sc ience activities (such as space research or nuclear physics)
which involv e expens i v e and elabor a t e equipme n t and large teams of scien t i s t s (Gold b e r g ,
1995).
As my analy s i s proce e de d I indep e nde n t l y id entifi e d three Big Ideas which coinci de d with
the strand maps of the AAAS unde r their cluste r ?The Univers e ?. The three Big Ideas are
gravit y , stars and the solar syste m, and I also ident i fi e d a fourt h idea (size and scale) which
the AAAS i ncludes in a separate theme co mmo n to other aspect s of scien c e , mathe ma t i c s
and techno l o g y . I chose the Big Ideas for my study using three main crite r i a : (i) the exten t
to which a concep t is fundame n t a l to the scie nce of astronom y ; (ii) the extent to which a
concep t is refle c t e d in the rese ar c h litera t u r e on astron o my educa tion; and (iii) the extent to
which either the planetarium or HartRAO a ddre s s e d the concep t in their exhibi t s and
presentations. I chose two further S ignificant Ideas : the day/ni g h t cycle and the phases of
the Moon. While these cannot be regarded as ideas fundame n t a l to astronomy , they have
been extensi v e l y resea r c h e d and I regard them neverth e l e s s as key concept s that were
address e d , at least oblique l y , at my study si tes. The Big and Signifi c a n t Ideas I chose for
my study are shown in Table 5.2, together with a summ a r y of how they ar e presented at the
study sites and their frequenc y in the research literature.
113
Table 5.2 Big Ideas used in my study
Big Ideas Peer-reviewed
studies since 1975
Presentation at
planetarium
Presentation at
HartRAO
Gravity 9 2 vide o clip s , 1
referen c e
4 demo n s t r a t i o n s , 1
refere n c e .
Stars (and Sun) 4 6 demo n s t r a t i o n s and
expla n a t i o n s
4 demo n s t r a t i o n s
and expla n a t io n s
Solar System 3 2 demon s t r a t i o n s 1 exten s i v e
demo n s t r a t i o n
Size and scale 1 1 expl a n a t i o n and 1
extens i v e
demo n s t r a t i o n
1 expl a n a t i o n and 1
extens i v e
demo n s t r a t i o n
Day and night 1 6 2 expla n a t i o ns for
observ a t i o n s made
Demon s t r a t i o n s of
the ?sky movi n g?
Phases of the
Moon
1 3 Moon land i ng slid e
show; phase s not
discuss e d
Phot o s of Moon ;
phases not discuss e d
I also chose one item which I refer to as a Dominant Artefact : the satel l i t e dish. At
HartRAO the 26m-dia me t e r radio telesc o p e do mi nates the whole site, and dishes are
visib l e in a numbe r of place s , even on the ro ad leadin g to the observ a t o r y . Let me say a
little more about the rationa l e fo r choos i n g each of these conce p t s .
5.4 Big Ideas
5.4.1 Gravity
I chose the concept of gravity (as one of the four fundame n t a l forc es in the
universe) as it is crucial in the understanding of astro n o my and cos mo l o g y . It is often
cover e d at schoo l as a rather dry topic with i n the theme ?mech a n i c s ? , and as a resul t ,
student s ? underst a n d i n g of grav i t y in relat i o n to the Earth and the solar syste m is usual l y
limit e d to solvi n g calcul a t i o n s and exam- s t y l e probl e ms . In the Atlas of Science Literacy
(Ameri c a n Assoc i a t i o n for the A dvance me n t of Science , 2001) gr avi t y is regar d e d as being
of suffici e n t import a n c e to be allocat e d it s own strand map. In the South African school
system, gravit y has tradit i o n a l l y been covere d at senior primar y and junior second a r y level
(grade s 7 to 8) as part of acceler a t i o n and forces. At higher grades , gravit y has been
covered as part of Physical Science within the grade 12 syllabu s under Newton ? s Law of
Gravi t at i o n . Sinc e the impl e me n t a t i o n of Curric u l u m 2005 and the Revise d Nation a l
Curri c ul u m State me n t (RNCS ) gravi t y is now c overe d in the Senior Phase of the General
Educat i o n and Traini n g band as ?The force th at keeps planets in orbit ? and governs ?
114
motio n in the solar syste m? (Depa r t me n t of Education, 2002 p. 71). Within the newly
imple me n t e d Furth e r Educa t i o n and Train i n g curric u l u m (Depar t me n t of Educat i o n 2003)
gravit y is covere d under mechan i c s in grades 10 and 11.
The concep t of gravit y was covere d quite differ e n t l y at the two sites in my study.
At the planet a r i u m, where stude nt s are taken on a visual tour of the solar system, the
prese n t e r used the word ?grav i t y ? 17 times during the visit by St Th eresa? s school (during
the pilot study). This compare s quite favoura b ly with other astronomy-related words, for
examp l e she used the word ?moon ? 52 times , ?p lan e t s ? 33 times , ?Plut o ? 22 times and ?gas?
17 times . The conce p t of gravi t y was used in a variety of ways during the show, as follows.
First the studen t s were shown a video clip of a corona mass ejecti o n from the sun,
and this was descri b e d as being rare, as the s un?s mass is held together due to gravity. The
presen t e r state d ?The sun has about 28 times as much gravity as the Earth which is
useful.???If it didn?t had enough gravit y it would just sort of blow itself apart from
heat. Heat makes things expand. Gravity ho lds things like the sun together.? (Theresa
pltm 038).
Secondly , student s were shown a video clip of how the solar system for med,
whereby dust and gas accumulate together, an d are pulled by gravity to form a star and
planet s . The presen t e r stated ?So you can progr a m m e a comput e r using maths to say what
would gravit y do to all those bill ions of little bits of dust and gas in that ball over there ?
and ?So what you end up with is huge lumps in the middle with a lot of gravit y and a lot of
pressure.? (Theresa pltm 070).
Thirdl y , with respec t to an artifi c i a l sate l l i t e , the prese nt e r descr i be d how it orbit s
the Earth at speed, so that it can remai n in orbit : ?On this pictur e here the inter n ati o n a l
space station would be about th at di stance above the Earth which is why it has to keep
moving. If it stops mo ving what would happen to it? Gravity will pull it down to the
Earth. It will fall out of the sky.? (Theres a pltm 122).
Durin g the visit by Lourd e s Girls Schoo l , si milar explanations were used by the
planet a r i u m presen t e r . She also ma de a stat em e n t that stres s e d the importance of gravity
through o u t the solar system: ?Gra vity, okay so the sun has gravity the Earth has gravity all
of these others have gravity as well so Me rcury pulls the sun, Mars pulls the sun, Jupiter
pulls the sun hugely the sun isn?t standi n g still the sun goes entire l y in circle s so we can
look at other stars to see if they are moving entire l y in circles and about hundre d s of the m
115
look like they are we assume beca us e they are pulled by the gravit y of planet s ? (Lourd e s
pltm 353)
These excerp t s show that studen t s are expos ed to the concept of gravity in the
followin g four ways througho u t the show:
? G r a v i t y is very high in a ma ssive object such as the sun, and it pulls not only material
ejected from it, but also the ot he r bodie s in the solar syste m.
? G r a v i t y is respons i b l e for ?pullin g togeth e r ? a proto solar system.
? G r a v i t y pullin g an orbiti n g body is counter a c t e d by the body orbitin g at high speed,
? A l l the solar syste m bodie s are pulli ng on each other due to the gravit y of their masses .
At HartRA O gravit y was also referr e d to, but in a less didact i c and more ?hands - o n ?
manner . Studen t s experi e n c e gravit y princi p a lly through an activity using ?Coke bottle
rocke t s? . Durin g this activi t y they attach two-l i t re plast i c bottl e s to a one-wa y valve withi n
a metal frame , which acts as a launch e r , posit i o n e d vertic a l l y . The valve is attache d to a
hand-operated air pump, which is used to pump air into the bottl e . When the press u re
inside the bottle reaches a critic al level, the bottle shoots out fr om the launc h e r into the air.
Stude n t s then exper i me n t with diffe r e n t level s of water in the bottl e to see which will allow
the ?rock et ? to fly to the highe st altit u d e . After the activi t y is compl e t e d the HartR A O
educat o r would norma l l y discus s the studen t s ? findin g s , referr i n g to gravi t y , the relat i ve
amoun t s of water in the bottl e , and the altitud e reache d .
A second way in which students ma y experien c e gravity at HartRAO is by handling
Coke cans. Situa t e d on a table in the Visit or s Centr e , there are ten 340ml Coca- C o l a cans,
each label l e d with the name of one of the plane t s in the sola r syste m, as well as the Moon.
The ?Plut o? can is empty , and a ll the others are filled with an amount of sand such that the
relative weights are in proportion to the weight they would be on the different planets. The
idea is that by pickin g each one up and feel ing its weight , visito rs can understa nd the
relative effect of gravity on each planet. Un lik e the rocke t activi t y however, students are
not directed by the HartRAO educator to carry out any activi t y with these cans. There is a
label in the centre reading ?What would a C oke can weigh on each pl anet ? ? Like many
exhibits in a science centre, vi sito r s can choose to intera c t w ith the displa y or not. All the
groups in my study who visited HartRAO were given time to wander around the visitors?
centre and handle exhi bi t s . On each occasi o n , a number of student s chose to pick up the
Coke cans. However, as there is no written explanation of the science involved students
116
have to use their prior knowl e d g e about weight, gravity and the planet s to unders t a n d their
signi f i c a nc e , or they need to ask their peers, the HartRAO educat o r or their own teacher.
A third appr o a c h to studen t s ? expe r i e n c i n g the effect s of gravit y is by the use of
calibrat e d ?bathroo m scales?. HartRAO has four scale s at the visit o r s? centr e , in the same
area as the Coca-C o l a cans. As in the Coke can activi t y , stude n t s are not direc t e d to use the
scale s , so a visit i n g stude n t may or may not get to inter ac t with the exhi bi t . All scales are
measu r e d in kilog r a ms and are calib r a t e d a ccord i n g to four bodies in the solar system:
Earth, the Moon, the Sun and Jupiter. A student standi n g on the ?Jupit e r ? scale would see
what his or her weight would be like on the planet , which is in tend e d to assist in a greate r
unders t a n d i n g of the concep t of weight in re lati o n to gravit y . Again, like the Coke cans,
there is no writt e n expla n a t i o n of the relat i o nsh i p of weight to gravity or size of the solar
system body. The activit y theref o r e intend s to s timulate the student to find out more about
the relatio n s h i p for themsel v e s .
A fourth way of experiencing the effects of gravity is by visitors ?trying to hit
Jupit er with a comet ? . In this exhibi t , visi t or s slide a ball beari n g (repr e s ent i n g the comet )
around a flatten e d bowl-s h a p e d struct u r e (repre s e n t i n g the solar syste m) with a hole in the
centre (repre s e n t i n g the S un) as explained in Kaelo?s narrative in Chapter 4.
The fifth, and probably lesser, way in which gravity may be directly referred to at
HartR A O is durin g the slide show, which in the case of the Balfo u r Fores t and
Achievement School visits was about the m oon landings . During the s lide show the topic
of gravity was mentione d in passing, for exampl e when asked about the lunar rover, one of
the students suggested ?Their vehicle help th em to not float. Maybe their vehicle have
gravit y [laugh t e r from peers] or weight?. However, the HartRAO educator did not follow
up on this observa t i o n .
In contr a s t to the plane t a r i u m, stude n t s at HartRAO had opportu n i t i e s to experie n c e
the effec t s thems e l v e s . The two ma in exper i e n ce s being exper i me n t i n g with water -fi l l e d
?rocke t ? bottle s and feelin g the simula t e d effect of gravit y on planet s in the solar syste m .
The extensi v e literat u r e on learnin g about gravity is highlig hted in section 5.8.1.
5.4.2 Stars and the Sun
I chose stars and the Sun becau s e stude n t s have direc t exper i enc e of them as objec t s in the
sky and becaus e havin g knowl e d g e of their size, compo s i t i on and positi o n in space gives
student s an underst a n d i n g of the scale of the solar syste m and unive r s e . Like the concept of
117
gravi t y , this is cruci a l to stude n t s ? overa l l unders t a n d i n g of astron o my , and the topic ?stars ?
is alloca t e d its own stran d map in the Atlas of Science Literacy (Ame rican Association for
the Advanc e me n t of Scienc e , 2001). In the analysis of st udents? knowledge it was not
always possible to separate what they knew ab out the Sun from their knowledge of stars,
so they are treated together mu ch of the time in this chapt e r and elsewh e r e in the thesis .
The RNCS refers to the following as core knowled g e and concept s for the
Inter me d i a t e Phase . ?The stars ? appar e n t posit i o ns in relat i o n to each other do not chang e,
but the nightl y positi o n of the star patte r n as a whole chang e s slowly over the course of a
year. Many culture s recogni s e a nd name star pattern s ? ? For th e Senior Phase it states:
?The sun, an averag e star, is the centra l and largest body in the solar system? and ?The sun
is the major source of energy for phenome n a on the Earth?s surfac e ? ? (Depar t me n t of
Educati o n , 2002 p. 70-71)
At the plane t a r i u m stars are a key part of the prese n t a t i o n: they are prese n t as a
backdr o p for almost the entire durat i o n of the show. At the presenta t i o n given to Lourdes
Girls School the planet a r i u m pres e n t e r used the word star or stars 116 times compa r e d with
the words Mars (80 times ) , Earth (57 times ) a nd Sun (51 times). In additio n , the followi n g
aspect s of stars were given specia l emphas i s :
? T h e name s of stars and constel l a t i o n s e.g. Si rius and Orion; how to use a star chart
to identi fy them.
? A n explana t i o n of the star signs (zodiac )
? W o r k i n g out star composi t i o n using a spectrome t e r .
? T h e Sun as the close st (not the bigge st ) star.
? T h e dista nc e to the next cl oses t star: Alpha Centau r i
? N e b u l a e and star format i o n
At HartRAO stars are also given considerable prominen c e by the educator s in the
follow i n g main ways:
? A n explana t i o n of why stars appear small and the Sun appears larger.
? A de mons t r a t i o n of the differe n c e betw een ?living ? and ?dead? stars using a
turnta b l e .
? A de mons t r a t i o n of the Sun?s image, showin g sunspo t s .
? A de monstr a t i o n of a large sundial in the car park.
Stars and the Sun featu r e littl e in the resea r c h litera t u r e , and this was a further reason for
includi n g them in my study. Comi ns (2001) lists nume rou s mi sconc e p t i o n s that
underg r a d u a t e studen t s hold about the Sun and star s, such as the Sun is not a star, and there
are many stars in the solar system. Sharp (1996 ) includ e d childr e n ? s views on the nature of
118
the Sun and stars in his study of a variety of astron o mi c a l concep t s . Roald and Mikals e n
(2000) asked deaf and hearing children in No rway about the Earth and heaven l y bodies ,
includi n g stars, but found that interpr e t a t i o n of the data on st ars was difficult, due to the
childre n ? s confus i o n betwee n as tro n o mi c a l stars and other bodi es which appear like stars.
Other than occas i o na l quest i o n s in multi pl e choice tests given as part of large r studi e s , the
only substan t i a l report e d resear c h on stars is by Agan (2004) . Comp arin g high school and
underg r a d u a t e studen t s , Agan used semi -s t r u c t u red interviews to find out students? ideas
about what stars are, how far they are apart a nd whethe r the Sun is a star. Her result s claim
that high school instru c t i o n can improv e stude nts ? knowledg e about stars, particul a r l y
when related to nuclear fusion and energy product i o n in stars.
5.4.3 Solar System
I chose the solar system as a Big Idea as it is fundame nt al to students? scientific
underst a n d i n g of the Earth in relatio n to the S un, the Moon and other planets. Like the first
two Big Ideas describe d, the solar system is alloca t e d its own strand map in the Atlas of
Science Litera c y (Ame ri c a n Associ a t i o n for the Advance me nt of Science , 2001).
The RNCS Senior Phase Core Knowledge and Conce p t s refer s to the follo w i n g :
?The earth is the third plane t from the sun in a system that includ e s the moon, the sun,
eight other plane t s and their moons , and smalle r object s such as astero i d s and comets ? . It
also contain s further referen c e s to the so lar system when describ i n g motion and gravity
(Depar t me n t of Educat i o n , 2002 p. 70-71) .
The planet a r i u m provi de s an animat e d vide o of the formation of a solar syste m
with grav i t y pull i n g toge t h e r matt e r to form a star, surroun d e d by orbitin g matter which
develo p s into planet s . The plate- s h a p e d stru ctu r e of the system is de mo nst r a t e d . The bulk
of the rest of the show is then a ?tour ? of all the plane t s of th e solar system, as well as so me
suggestions that other stars might have their own solar systems. At HartRAO the educator
questions students about the planets in the sola r system, descr i b e s thei r chara ct e ri s t i cs , and
goes on to demons t r a t e , using a scale model , how far each planet is from the Sun. This
latter demons t r a t i o n overla p s with th e fourth Big Idea: size and scale.
Like ?Stars and the Sun?, researc h st udie s on people? s knowle d g e of the solar
system are few, and this was one of the reason s for inclu di n g the topic as a Big Idea on my
study . Treag u s t and Smith (1989 ) inter v i e w e d grade 10 student s about their understanding
of the motion of the planet s and gravit y in the solar syste m. Their study uncov e r e d many
119
misconceptions students possessed in relation to gravity and the motion of the planets .
Summer s and Mant (1995) in their study of primary teache r s used a true/fa l s e
questi o n n a i r e to determi n e knowle d g e about a variety of astronomi c a l concepts including
the solar system. They found that the teache r s did not have a cl ear picture of what
consti t u t e s the solar system, and the majori t y includ e d stars near to and among the planets.
Sharp?s (1996) study in which he intervi e w e d 42 10- to 11-year - o l d childre n found that
they held a variety of ideas about the solar system, but that over half could describe a
?scie nt i fi c? mode l of its struct u r e .
5.4.4 Size and Scale
Like the concept of gravity and the nature of stars, most astrono me r s regard size (e.g. of
heaven l y bodies , the solar system and the uni vers e ) and scale (e.g. distanc e s across the
solar syste m and betwee n stars ) as being cr ucia l to an underst a n d i n g of astrono my . In the
school classr o o m they are some of the most diff icu l t concep t s to get across to learner s due
to the enormo u s distan c e s and scale of the univers e (Sadle r , 1998) and visitin g a
planeta r i u m or telesco p e might be expecte d to provide oppo rt u n i t i e s for demonst r a t i o n of
scale not avail a bl e to the class r o o m teache r . The Atlas of Science Litera c y incorp or a t e s
aspec t s of size and scale into the ?Stars ? and ?Galax i e s and Un ivers e ? strand maps.
The RNCS does not make specif i c refere n c e to size and scale , but they appea r in its
?unify i n g state me n t ? for the knowle d g e stran d Planet Earth and Beyond which states ?Our
plane t is a small part of a vast solar sy stem in an immens e galaxy? (Depar t m e n t of
Educati o n , 2002 p. 69). Sharp (1996) is relativ e l y optimi s t i c that childr e n of primar y
school age are capabl e of graspi n g ?compl e x and abstrac t informa t i o n ? about basic
astron o my , and that ?compar i s o n s involv i n g rela ti v e size, distan c e , age and time were ?
useful and familia r to childre n ? (p. 707 and 709). Conver s e l y , Sadler (1998) suggest s that
?compr e h e n s i o n of vast astron o mi c a l scales a ppear s to remain beyond the reach of student s
even after taking an Earth scie nc e course [or] astrono my cour se in high school? (p. 283). A
simil a r conce p t to size and scale that I inve sti g a t e is student unders t a n d i n g of geologi c
time, where the scale invol v e d is massi v e a nd difficul t to comprehe n d . Dodick and Orion
(2003) in their study of grad e 7-12 students and ge ologic time suggest that around Grades
7 and 8 students can begin to a pprecia t e it. This grade range is simil a r to that of my own
study (age 12 to 14), and I sugges t in sectio n 5.8.4 that student s are capable of a greater
120
understanding of size and scal e within the solar system a nd univer s e as a result of
interac t i o n s during thei r scien c e centr e visit .
At the planet a r i u m, the presen t e r explai n s why the Sun appear s so much bigger
than other stars even th ough it is an ordina r y st ar, as a result of the immense distance the
stars are away. She then demon s t r a t e s just how far it is from the Sun to the next neare st
star (Alph a Centa u r i ) by compa r i n g the dista n c e acros s the solar syst e m with the dista n c e
betwe e n the 2 stars. By calcul a t i ng a rela tiv e l y simple divisi o n sum (as describ e d in
Kaelo?s narrat i v e in Chapter 4) she shows that it would ta ke about 4000 years to reach
Alpha Centaur i , travell i n g at speeds twenty- t i m e s faster than our current spacec r a f t . At
HartRAO, the educator uses an analogy of cl ose and distan t trees to explai n why the Sun
looks so much large r than the stars . The exte nsi v e activit y of ?taking the solar system for a
walk? uses a scale model of the solar syste m reduc e d 4 billion times , to pace out dist an c e s
between the Sun and planets. In additio n to these more substa ntial presentations, both sites
referr e d to size and scale in other discus s i o n s , such as the size of the Earth in relat i o n to the
Sun and Moon at the planet a r i u m and when viewing sunspots at HartRAO.
Relati v e l y few studies have incorpo r a t e d si ze and scale into their invest i g a t i o n . In
their 1992 study of British primary school teachers? knowledge of astro n o mi c a l
pheno me n a , Summe r s and Mant (1995 ) concl u de d that few had an accurate knowledge of
scale of the Earth- S u n system, wher ea s 85% kne w that the Moon is sm aller than the Earth.
Sadler?s quantitative study of 1250 grade 8- 12 students in the USA (Sadler 1998) had one
questio n on the distanc e between the Sun and the closest star, which the majorit y of
student s were not able to answ er accurate l y . Trumper used Sa dler?s question and 2 others
of the scale of the Earth and the Sun in his studie s (Trumpe r , 2001a; 2001b) . Trumpe r
conclu d e d that this topic was one of the w eakest areas of high school students? knowledge,
with only 20-25 % answe r i n g these quest i o n s corre c t l y . More recent l y Agan (2004 ) has
shown that high school students we re able to speak of ?great distances between stars?, but
only the underg r a d u a t e studen t s could rela t e the dista nc e s to a scale mode l .
5.5 Significant Ideas
5.5.1 Day and Night
I n contra s t to ?stars? , an underst a n d i n g of the day/n i g h t cycle ha s been investigated
exten si v e l y in the resear c h litera t ure , and I consid e r e d that it would be a useful idea to
exami n e . The Atlas of Scien c e Litera c y incorp ora t e s the day/ n i g h t cycl e into the ?Grav i t y ?
121
and ?Solar Syste m? stran d maps. In the RNCS there is speci fi c refer e nc e to the day/ni g h t
cycle in the Intermed i a t e Phase: ?Day and night may be explained by the rotation of the
earth on its own axis as it circl es the sun?. Simil a r l y , at the Senio r Phase there is refer e n c e
to the motion of the Earth explai n i n g th e day (Depar t me n t of Educat i o n , 2002 p. 69).
The concep t of the Earth spinni n g , howeve r , is referred to only briefly at both the
study sites . At the plane t a r i u m there are sever a l demons t r a t i o n s of the stars, Moon and Sun
moving fast across the dome, and the presen t e r ma ke s refe r e n c e to the fact that this is the
Earth spinnin g or rotat i ng rathe r than a real mo veme n t of the stars . At HartR A O there are
two opport u n i t i e s for the educat o r s to refer to the Earth spinnin g . First, during the
demons t r a t i o n of the Sun?s image projec t e d on to a card, where the image moves over the
course of a few minutes , and secondl y when th e sundia l is demons t r a t e d to show how the
Sun can be used to tell the time. In both these cases , the educa t o r s expla i ne d that the
move me n t was due to the Earth rotati n g .
There are more than 16 peer-r e v i e w e d articl e s examin i n g studen t s? and teache r s?
ideas about day and night. A st udy by Baxter (1989) showed that from age 9 to 16 a larger
proport i o n of the older childre n in the sampl e used a scientific explanation for day and
night, but that miscon c e p t i o n s persisted throughout the sample . A very infl u e n t i a l paper by
Vosniadou and Brewer (1994) explained 6- to 11-year- o l d children ? s understanding of day
and night in terms of menta l model s : from in itia l (na?ve ) throug h synt het i c to scienti f i c ,
and again found a progress i o n towa rds the scien tific notion in the ol dest children. These
results have been confirme d by subsequ e n t researc h e r s such as Sharp (1996), Sadler
(1998), Roald and Mikalsen (2001) and Trumpe r (2001a, 2001b) in children , and Summe rs
and Mant (1995) and Atwood and Atwood (1995) in primary teache r s . Kikas (1998)
conduc t e d a longitu d i n a l study in which she found that a group of 20 students were able to
reme mbe r the (textb o o k ) scient i f ic explanation for day and ni ght 2 months after teaching.
Howeve r she found 4 years later their scientific know le d g e was not remembe r e d and they
relied heavily on everyda y experie n c e to explain the phenome n o n . Albanes e et al . (1997)
strong l y critic i s e the work of Baxter ( 1989) and Vosniadou and Brewer (1994), and by
impli c a t i o n the subse q u e n t paper s based on th eir mental mo del theori e s , and suggest that
further research on this topic is needed.
122
5.5.2 Phases of the Moon
L i k e the day/ni g h t cycle, th e phases of the Moon are a concep t which has been studie d
exten si v e l y . The Atlas of Scien c e Litera c y incor p o r a t e s the lunar cycle into the Solar
System strand map. At the Interme d i a t e Phas e of the RNCS core knowledge about the
Moon includes ?The moon?s apparent shape changes in a predictable way and these
change s ma y be explai n e d by its motion relati v e to the earth and sun? (Depar t me n t of
Education, 2002 p. 69). There is further referenc e to an explanation of the Moon phases at
the Senior Phase .
At the study sites the Moon is discussed in several contexts , for example at the
planeta r i u m the path of the Moon through the sk y is demonst r a t e d , and photogr a p h s of its
surface are shown. At HartRAO there is a gian t (3m diamet e r ) model of the Moon donate d
by NASA (and therefor e ?upsid e down? from our point of view in the southern
hemi s p h e r e ! ) which stude n t s are referr e d to a nd the Moon is discuss e d in relatio n to the
Earth when the scale of the solar syste m is expla i n e d . Howev e r , at neith e r site are the
phases of the Moon specifically discussed, mo de l l e d or explain e d in terms of the Moon
orbitin g the Earth with sunligh t fallin g on diffe r e n t amoun t s of the Moon? s surfa c e as
viewed from Earth over 28 days. It would ther e f o r e not be expec t e d that stude nt s in the
study improve their underst a n d i n g of the Moon phases after the visit.
I identi f i e d more than 10 peer-r e v i e w e d articl e s discus s i n g pe ople?s understanding
of the Moon phases . In contra s t to the majori t y of older children being able to explain day
and night, knowle d g e of the cause of the Moon phases is genera l l y poor in school - a g e
children , tertiary students and teachers (e.g. Barnet t & Morran, 2002; Baxter , 1989;
Summer s & Mant, 1995). Howeve r , a number of resea r c he r s have been able to show
substan t i a l increas e in student unders t a n d i n g as a direct result of instructional activity (e.g.
Stahly, Krockov e r & Shepards o n , 1999).
5.5.3 Dominant Artefact: Parabolic/Satellite Dish
I chose this as the domi n a n t artefa c t of the study becaus e of the radio telescope at
HartRAO which dominate s the entire visit to the site. Just as the back drop of stars strongly
infl u e n c e s a visit to the plane t a r i u m, the para b o l i c dish of the teles c o pe is the main centr e
of attraction at HartRAO. Since the advent a nd increas i n g popular i t y of satellite television
in the 1990s, dishes are common sights on buildin g s in most ur ban settings, and students
could be expec t e d to be fa mil i a r with their shape .
123
Not surpri s i n g l y , the RNCS does not make sp ecif i c refere nc e to satell i t e dishes , but
does refer to satell i t e s as object which may be observed in the sky (Foundat i o n Phase), and
both Earth-b a s e d and orbitin g teles c ope s (Seni or Phase ) .
The planet a r i u m prese n t a t i o n s made no refe r e n c e to satel l i t e s or dishe s, altho u gh
they did show dishes fixe d to spacec r a f t as pa rt of the slide show. At HartRAO the 2 main
ways in which parabo l i c dishes were de monst r a t e d were the ?whisp e r dish? activi t y and the
explan a t i o n of how the main telesc o p e func ti o n s . During the activit y , pairs of student s
whispe r e d into parabol i c dishes placed 20m apart , and the educa t o r expla i n e d how sound
waves are focus e d in the dish and refle c t e d from one to the other . She furt h e r compa r e d the
parab o l i c shape with torch refl e ct o r s, satel l i t e dishes and the radio telescope. One of the
highlights of the visit for the st udents was standing close to th e radio telesco p e dish (Figure
4.11) and seeing it move to point to a particul ar part of the sky. Th e explanation of the
telesc o p e ? s shape and functi o n , togeth e r with the playin g of sounds r ecord e d from stars,
allowed students to question the educator s about various aspects of the site.
The only study invol v i n g whisp e r dishe s repor t e d in the liter a t ur e is one by
McClaf f e r t y (1995) in which he found that some visit o r s were able to learn from the
exhibi t . Others howeve r , were unable to tran sfer their prior knowle dge of reflect i o n and
focussi n g to the new context of the whisper dish, sugges t i n g the situat e d nature of
knowledge that others have described (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
5.6 Coding for Big Ideas
T h r o u g h o u t the rest of this thesis , the eight c oncep t s in astron o my I have identi f i e d as Big
and Signif i c a n t Ideas as well as the Domi na n t Artefa c t will be refer r e d to colle ct i ve l y as
Big Ideas. For each Big Idea, I develop e d hier arc h i c a l categor i e s of student knowled ge (1
highest and 3 lowest) based on how the stude nts responde d to the intervie w question s
during their pre and post-int e r v i e ws . The Bi g Idea categori e s and cr iteria for assigning
studen t s ? views to a catego r y are self-e x p l a n a t o r y and are shown in Table 5.3. Each student
was placed into a category for each of the Big Ideas they demons t r a t e d during their
struct u r e d inter vi e w , both prior to and after the visi t to the study site. As exemplar s , I
examine each Big Idea and show how stude nt s were categor i s e d in section 5.6.1.
124
Table 5.3 Criteria for assigning students to knowledge categories for Big and Signif icant Ideas and the Dominant Artefact
Big or Significant Idea Knowledge Leve l 1* Knowledge Level 2 Knowledge Level 3
Grav ity con cept ? the exten t of
know ledg e and und er stand ing
of grav ity
Grav ity as a pullin g (or push in g)
force only. No add ition al knowledg e
or und e r s tan d in g
1.5 Ver y limi te d und er s tand ing of
grav ity, one correct idea, but no
con cep tu al under stand ing .
Limited unde r stan d ing of how grav ity pulls
towar d s a body. Misc on c e p tion s appa r en t (e.g .
no grav ity in space, on Moon etc.)
2.5 : Basic scien tific und erstan d in g, but still with
at least 1 misco n c ep tion .
Sub stan tial scien tific und erstan d in g reg ard in g
mass and grav ity. No maj o r misco n cep tion s
appar en t.
Star conc ep t ? the exten t of
know ledg e and und er stand ing
of stars.
Min i mal idea: stars as ligh ts at nigh t,
no correct referen ce to comp o sitio n,
no scientifically correct idea of size,
litt le or no idea of position in space
2: Star s as suns. Burn in g ball of gas.
Misco n cep tio ns in terms of e.g . size,
composition, and position in space.
Fully scien tific exp lan ation . Includ ing : Ball of
burning gas, referenc e to H/He. Correct idea
of size & positio n in space. May inclu d e
misc o n c e p tion( s ) or an omiss io n rega rd ing
composition, distance or size
Sun conc ep t ? the exten t of
know ledg e or under s tand ing of
the Sun
The most naive lev el of con cep tio ns:
e.g. sun bigg er & brigh te r than stars ,
sun-b y- da y & stars -b y-n igh t, ball of
fire , sun hot, sun ligh t, sun huge, uses
for drying , for plan t s
Sun as star, sun as bigge s t star . Some indic a tio n
of more deve lop e d than lower conc e p t. No
refer e n c e to diff e r en c e as being related to
dista n c e or wrong idea of dista n c e . Other sun
facts may include: energy, gas, sunspots etc.
Sun as closest, not biggest star, i.e. idea of
scale . Indic a tion of more develo p ed
knowledg e than lower con cepts. Prop erties
may name gases , refe r to nucle a r ener g y, UV
lig h t, age, future
Solar System ? the exten t of
know ledg e abou t the
comp o s itio n and shap e of the
solar syste m.
No scien tific knowledg e of what
solar syste m is.
Knowledg e of what con stitu tes solar system, but
misconceptions prevalen t (e.g. shape, stars in
solar syste m)
Sub stan tial scien tific kno wled g e of solar
syste m, including shape. No major
misconceptions.
Size and scale ? the extent of
know ledg e and und er stand ing
of size, mass and distan ce
(exc lu d in g grav ity)
Conf u sed and conf lictin g know ledg e
regardin g size, mass and distan ces.
2: Some correct ideas regard in g size, mass and
distance. Some incorrect ideas and
misconceptions.
2.5: Basic scien tif ic und e r s tan d in g, but with at
least 1 misconception.
Scien tif ic und er s ta nd ing of size, mass and
distance in the solar syste m and beyo nd.
125
Big or Significant Idea Knowledge Leve l 1* Knowledge Level 2 Knowledge Level 3
D a y and nigh t ? an explan a tion
for why the Sun appe ar s to
move across the sky
Stud en t show s confu s ion regar d in g
the conc ep t or stud en t may show
misco n cep tions such as day and nig h t
rev er sed , revo lu tio n arou nd sun as
reas on for sun move men t.
Scien tific con cep tio n dev elo ps as a resu lt of
using mode l. May have refe rr e d to Earth
revo lv in g /o rb itin g aro und sun as initial
explan a tion of day and nigh t, but by
manip u la ting mode l, deve lop s corr e c t
conc ep tion .
Full scien tific con cep tion from start of
explan a tion : Earth spinn ing on axis.
Phases of the Moon Little, confu sed or no idea of cau se
of Moon phas es.
2: Exp lan atio n invo lv es a mis co n cep tion e.g.
Earth 's shado w. Or limi ted exp lan ation but not
wro ng .
2.5 : Partial scien tific: exp lanatio n has some
refer e n c e to sun shin in g or 'ref le c tin g ' on moon,
but no ref to Moon orb iting Earth . No obv iou s
misc o n c e p tion .
Full scien tific exp lan ation referring to the
Moon orb itin g the Earth and sun ligh t shin in g
on part of the Moon .
Domin an t Artefact:
Parab o lic/satellite dish
Little or no idea of idea of 'collectio n
of sign als' or similar, but not able to
expr ess prop er ly. Direction not
correct.
2: eith e r corr e ct explan a tion of waves boun c in g
or corr e c t pointin g dire c tion (but not both)
2.5: correct explanation of wav es boun cing and
correct pointing di re c tion but need ed
consid e r ab le prob in g.
Corr e c t expla na tio n of waves boun c ing and
corr e c t poin ting dire c tion with no prob in g.
* one student (Nonkululeko) had no idea what gravity was, and was classif i e d as knowled g e level 0. For all other Big Ideas, stu dents had at least
a mini mu m level of knowled g e , and so the lowest knowled g e level was 1.
126
5.6.1 Helen and gravity
The students in Lourdes Girls School, who visited the Johann e s b u r g Planet a r i u m, were not
asked about gravit y in their stru c t u r e d inter v i e w , but Helen re fer r e d to it in her PMM, and I
questi o ne d her on the basis of what she had writte n . In her PMM Helen had written that
there is ?No gravity in space so you float around? (scf 11pre 22). The tran script of the
inter v i e w is as follo w s :
Inter v i e w e r : What is gravi t y ?
Hele n : It?s a grav? It?s a pull that hold us on Earth .
Interv i e w e r : Uh-hmm .
Hele n : Umm. Ther e is no gravi ty in space so we just float aroun d if we
went there.
Interv i e w e r : Uh-hmm .
Helen: Like the astron a u t s and the spaces h i p s .
Inter v i e w e r : Uh-hmm . Okay . What about if you would go to the moon? Is
there gravi ty on the moon?
Helen : No. You would just float aroun d .
Interv i e w e r : Uh-hmm . Is there gravit y on the sun?
Helen : Umm. Nnnn? . N o .
(scf1 1 p r e p m m 45-65 )
In this excha n g e , Helen gives a brief defi n i t i o n of gravi t y as a pull that holds us on the
Earth, and indica t e s that there is no gravity in space. When probed, she also suggest s that
there is no gravity on the Moon or on the Sun. According to my gravity criteria Helen has
basic knowledge of gravity as a ?pull? and ha s misconceptions that there is no gravity in
space, on the Moon or the Sun. She is theref o r e placed in categor y 2 for gravity prior to her
visit .
After the visit she added to her PMM, wr iting under her previous statemen t that
there is no gravity in space the additional not e ?But the planets do have gravity? (scf11pos
13). She further wrote that ?Each planet ?h olds the sun in place by means of their
gravit y ? (scf11 p o s 15). When questi o n e d on these new stateme n t s she had writte n , the
inter v i e w went as follow s :
Inter v i e w e r : Tell me about this, you say plane t s in our solar sy ste m hold the
sun in place by means of their gravi ty . Tell me a littl e bit about
that.
Helen : Okay . The sun doesn ? t stand s til l . It moves arou n d . If you look
throug h a telesc o p e you can actual l y see it wobble a bit from ti me
to time.
127
Intervi e w e r : Okay .
Helen : And becaus e of our gravit y . The sun ? Hold. The sun? s
gravi t a t i o n holds us in place, but we also hold the sun in place by
our, by the means of our gravi t a t i o n a l pull. And the plane t s .
Intervi e w e r : Uh-hmm. Okay . Umm. Okay . You? re say ing that there? s no
gravi ty in space . You?v e said befor e ? And the plane t s do have
gravi ty . What ?? Umm, what is gravi t y relat e d to? Do you
know ? Why do plan e t s have grav i ty ?
Helen : To keep things onto them, like their ? Like ? We would n? t
float away .
Interv i e w e r : Yeah.
Helen : So, we could be ? Stuck to the groun d.
Inter v i e w e r : And ? Umm, so, which ones ?? Do they have the same
amou n t of grav i t y or is it diff e r e n t on diffe r e n t plan e t s ?
Helen : They?r e differ e n t .
Inter v i e w e r : Okay . Why is that? What?s it relat e d to?
Helen : I?m not sure.
Inte r v i e w e r : Okay . Like the moon or ? you don? t know ?
Helen : The moon is ? If we wen t like, right here ? Here ? Umm, we
? If, let?s say, I weigh 40kg here [on Earth ], on the moon I?ll
weig h abou t 10.
Helen: Becaus e the gravit a t i o n a l pull is less.
Helen : And it pulls you more, yeah, it pulls you in.
Inter v i e w e r : Okay . And suppo s i ng you are on Jupit e r ? Would it be great e r or
lesser?
Helen : Great e r , I think. The bigger the planet is I think, the mor e gravit y
you? v e got.
Inter v i e w e r : Okay . (Pause) Where did you learn that?
Helen : I don?t reme mb e r .
Inter v i e w e r : You just knew it?
Helen : Yes, I think.
(scf 1 1 p o s p m m 01-0 7 & 37-75 )
Helen? s knowle d g e was quite differ e n t from that prior to the visit . Not only does she have
a sophis t i c a t e d under s t a ndi n g of how the Sun holds the plane t s in space (and vice versa ) by
means of gr avi t y , but also that the Moon and pl anets have gravity and the cause of gravity
is related to mass of the body. In Braund and Reiss?s terms (2004), she has deepene d her
knowledge and understanding of grav ity . While it is not certai n whether she still holds a
miscon c e p t i o n that there is ?no gravit y in space? or on the Sun, her understanding of the
concep t of gravit y appea r s to be modera t e l y well develo p e d . I theref o r e placed her in
gravit y catego r y 3 as a result of this post- v i s i t inter v i e w .
128
5.6.2 Helen and stars
A l l the studen t s who visite d the planet a ri u m we re asked about stars in the follow i n g way
?Stars at night look like pinpr icks of light. Why? What are stars? ? Helen?s response before
the visit was as follo w s :
Helen : Umm. They ? r e masse s that give off their own light and heat and
that? s how and that? s why they twink l e and the light takes a long
time to trave l to us.
Intervie w e r : So why are they so tiny?
Helen: Becaus e they are far away from us.
Intervi e w e r : Uh-hmm. What size are th ey appro x i ma t e l y ? I mean, in terms of
a moon, Earth , sun, what sort of size are the stars ?
Helen: Oh, they can be differ e n t sizes.
Interv i e w e r : Uh-hmm. Give me so me range.
Helen: They can go ? well, there is anothe r ? Umm, well, a star that is
as big as our sun?s o me kilom e t e r s or light -y e a r s away from us
and then there are sta rs as big as the mo on and the Earth.
Intervi e w e r : Okay . What are they mad e of?
Helen : Umm. Mass.
Interv i e w e r : Mass being what?
Helen: Rock? More or less ?
(scf1 1 p r e i n t 146- 1 70 )
Helen clear l y has some scient i f i c knowled g e of stars: she kn ow s that they emit thei r own
light and heat as well as having some idea of their si ze, although her knowledge here
appear e d insecu r e . She also knows that they are ?far away? which results in their
appea r a nc e being so tiny. One misco n c e p t i o n she has regar ds their compo s i t i o n: she think s
that they are made of rock, but again appears to be uncertain. I classi f i e d her at level 2 in
my criter i a becau s e altho u g h she didn?t know the composi t i o n of stars, she had some idea
of their positio n in space and size, as well as their product i o n of heat and light.
After the visit, Helen? s respon s e was simila r , but showed that she now reme mbered
that stars are made of gas, but did not el abora t e enough about their compos i t i o n size or
positio n to be classif i e d as level 3:
Helen: Stars are mas ses, no, they ?re balls of burning gasses that umm,
produ c e ligh t and heat, whic h is their own light and heat.
Intervie w e r : Uh-hmm. Okay . What sort of size are they?
Helen: Umm, they ? re big. They can actual l y ? I think they can vary
but normal l y they? r e as big as our sun.
(scf 1 1 p o s i n t 82-8 6 )
129
Helen was theref o r e classi f i e d as having a si mila r concep t i o n of stars from pre- to post-
v i s i t . While she had not acqui r e d addit i o na l miscon c e p t i o n s or errone o u s knowle d g e , she
had also not substa n t i a l l y changed her knowledg e about stars.
5.6.3 Helen?s conception of the Sun
In her pre- and post-visit interviews I aske d Helen ?Tell me anything you know about the
Sun?. Her answers were relativ e l y brief, a nd I did not probe her very much. Before her
visit she state d :
Helen: Umm. It con sis t s of lots of gases, then it gives light to all the
plane t s aroun d it and then it?s the centr e of our solar sy ste m.
(Laug h s )
Interv i e w e r : Okay . Umm. What are the gases doing?
Helen : They form heat.
Intervi e w e r : Okay . Do you know the name s of any of them?
Hele n : Umm. No. I dunn o .
(scf1 1 p r e i n t 87-95 )
She also knew that the Sun is regard e d as a star, as when she was asked for the names of
any stars she knew, she referr e d to the Sun. On these bases, I classif i e d Helen as having
knowled g e about the Sun in categor y 2. Her pos t visit responses to the same questions
were very similar , and she added nothing to her ideas about the Sun.
5.6.4 Helen?s conception of the solar system
L i k e other student s visitin g the plane t a r i u m, I asked Helen what the solar syst e m is, and
probed by asking what it consist s of and what shape it is. Prior to the visit , Helen alrea d y
had a scienti f i c concept i o n of the solar system, but I classif i e d her as knowled g e level 2 on
the basis that she thoug ht the solar syste m cont a i n e d stars (in additi o n to the Sun) and was
oval shape d , like a plum:
Helen: It consis t s of planet s , the stars, umm, the sun, our ? The centre
of our u ? eer?.s o l a r sy ste m, yes. And then nine planet s and
then they all have moons , (paus e ) yeah.
(Inte r r u p t i o n on schoo l P.A. sy ste m)
Intervi e w e r : Umm. What shape is ? the solar sy stem?
Helen : Umm. Umm. An oval shape ?
Inter v i e w e r : Uh-hm m . Oval ? Oval like a plum or oval like on a flat
surface?
Helen : Oval like a plum.
Inte r v i e w e r : Okay . Umm. How?d you know ?
130
Helen : Cause we?ve done proje c t s on this.
(scf1 1 p r e i n t 65-79 )
After the visit her knowl e d g e was very simil a r , except that she also inclu d e d the Milky
Way in her conce p t i o n of the solar syste m, and I again class i f i e d her as being at knowl e d g e
level 2.
5.6.5 Helen?s conception of size and scale
H e l e n showed a relativ e l y soph isti c a t e d concepti o n of distance s , sizes and the scale of the
solar syste m and unive r s e prior to the visit. She was one of only 6 students who referred to
the conce p t of the light year as a measu r e of distanc e , and her knowled g e of the relativ e
sizes of the Earth , Moon and Sun was scient i f i c a l l y accura t e . Her knowle d g e of star size as
being rough l y the same as the Sun was cleare r after the visit, and she reme mb e r e d the
length of time it would take to reach the ne arest star to our solar system (4000 years)
whereas she had guessed at 100 years in her pre- v i s i t inter v i e w . On the basis of her
relativ e l y advanc e d concep t i o n s of scale, I classi f i e d her as bei ng at knowle d g e level 3
both pre- and post-visit.
5.6.6 Helen?s understanding of day and night
T h e extensi v e l y - r e s e a r c h e d Big Idea of the day/ ni g h t cycle has been discus s e d in Chapte r 2
and secti o n 5.5.1 . Prior to her visit Helen appe ared to be confused about day and night.
Like several other studen t s she used the term revol v e without clari fy i ng whether she really
meant revolv e or rotate, and when supplie d w ith a model of the Eart h and Sun was unable
to explai n the Sun?s appare n t moveme n t across the sky. For these reason s , Helen was
classif i e d at knowled g e level 1 for the day/nig h t cycle:
Helen: Becaus e the Earth revol v e s .
Inter v i e w e r : Okay . Can you, if I gi ve you a littl e model like that and can you
and let me get my sun out, if you got the sun and you turn it on,
have the sun on one side, show me what? s goin g on.
Helen : Okay . Here you have the sun.
Intervi e w e r : Yeah.
Helen : Then the Earth moves , umm, this way?
Interv i e w e r : Uh-hmm.
Helen: Wait, wait, this way .
Intervi e w e r : Okay .
Helen: And then keep s like that.
131
Interv i e w e r : So, ? What?s that side at the mo ment? What? s?? When you
have the sun movi n g acro s s the sky ever y d ay . What? s on this
side?
Hele n : Noth i n g .
Intervi e w e r : Okay . And the other si de? Okay . So, so on this side?
Helen: Yes?
(Blan k on tape. About 10 secon d s . )
Inter v i e w e r : What? s going on with the sun moving over the sky there?
Helen : It moves fro m West to East.
Interviewer: Okay . Right. Okay , thanks.
(scf1 1 p r e i n t 99-13 2 )
Howev e r , in her post- v i si t inter vi e w Helen was able to artic ul a t e the reaso n for the Sun?s
appare n t mo veme n t fluent l y . Unfort u n a t e l y I di dn?t probe her about her change in idea, but
clearl y some clarif i c a t i on ha d taken place in her mind over th e week between the first and
second interv i e w . Some t hi n g may have increas ed her reflective capa cit y (Braun d & Reiss,
2004). On the basis of the followi n g transcr i p t , I classif i e d her knowled g e level as 3:
Helen: It? s because we rotate.
Interv i e w e r : Uh-hmm . Okay . So, with the model we got here. If the sun is
there , what? s the Earth doing ?
Helen : The Earth is going this way like a?
[Demo n s t r a t e s the Eart h spin n i n g on its ax is and orbiti n g the Sun with the latte r
statio n a r y ].
Intervi e w e r : Okay . So what? s actuall y caus i n g the sun to move? Appar e n t l y
? Is it the movi n g roun d of the sun or is it the rotat i n g ?
Helen : Rotati n g .
(scf 1 1 p o s i n t 57-6 5 )
5.6.7 Helen and the phases of the Moon
Helen was one of only five stude nts in the study who, prior to he r visit, was able to explain
why the Moon?s shape appear e d differ e n t over the course of a month. Most student s had
some diffic ulty with expressing themselves when asked about the cause of the Moon?s
phases , and Helen was no except i o n . Howeve r , she was able to explai n the lunar cycle in
terms of the Moon orbiting the Earth (although she initially said th e Sun, she corrected
herse l f ) and the Sun?s light falli n g on di ffere n t amounts of the Moon?s surface , thus:
Helen: Becaus e, umm, it refl ec t s like the sun? s light and its shadow ,
so me, so me parts are differ e n t , like it revo lv e s around the sun, the
Earth ? t h e Earth and then the sun?s light cover s so me parts of the
moon and somet i m e s other parts like you can see only one part of
the sun.
(scf 1 1 p r e i n t 182- 1 86 )
132
After the visit she gave a simil a r expla n a t i o n:
Helen : Becaus e ? Umm, the mo on revolv e s aroun d us, the Earth . And
the sun?s light ? Umm how can I say , the sun? s light ?OK
You can only see the parts of the moon that ? Umm, the sun,
that recei v e s the sunli g h t. The sun? s light. The shado w part you
can? t see.
(scf 1 1 p o s i n t 094)
On this basis I classifi e d Helen at knowledg e level 3 both prior to and after her visit to the
plane t a r i u m.
5.6.8 Sipho and satellite dishes
S t u d e n t s were questio n e d about sa tell i t e dishes only if they visited Hartebeesthoek Radio
Astronomy Observat o r y , so I here use Sipho fro m Balfour Forest Scho ol to show how I
classi f i e d a studen t into categ or i e s of knowled g e for this do minant artefact. Although he
was fa mil i a r with dishe s , prior to his visi t to HartRAO Sipho had only a limited idea about
their shape or where they point to, as the follo w i ng trans cr i pt shows :
Interv i e w e r : Like a satell i t e dish. Okay . What is the shape of that dish?
Sipho : The shape ? It is circl e an d it?s a little bit like a circle and oval.
Intervi e w e r : Okay . And it? s? Like a dish at the same ti me?
Sipho : Yes.
Inter v i e w e r : Okay . Umm ... Why is it that shape do you think ?
Sipho : I think it could be, it? s easy for it to pull ? Some messa g e fro m
? the planet s or someth i n g what ever it?s (//) it to do.
Inter v i e w e r Where is it point i n g to? You know the satel l i t e dish on the
hous e , wher e is it point in g to?
Sipho : The ? at the sky ? and the moon.
(swo 0 5 p r e i n t 154- 17 0 )
On this basis, I classified him at knowle dge level 1.5, where he could not explain the
reason for the satell i t e dish shape, and was not clear about the direc t i o n in which the dish
might point. Howeve r , he was able to expand consid e r a b l y on his explan a t i o n in the post-
vi s i t intervi e w , and althoug h he was not scient i f i c a l l y correc t in all deta ils , he showed an
improve d knowle d g e level, which I classif i e d as 2.
Intervi e w e r : Okay . And a satelli t e dish, why is it that shape ?
Sipho : In order for let? s say that we used in Harteb e e s when we talk
about our voice it bounc e back and then it bounc e to the other
dish then it comes out with the wires .
Interv i e w e r : Okay . And a satell i t e dish that is may b e used for somet h i n g like
DSTV where is it point in g to?
133
Siph o : To the moon .
Intervi e w e r : Uh hmmm. Why is it point i n g to the moon?
Sipho : Becaus e there are so me oth er satel l i t e dishe s that are al so pointin g
to us so becaus e when it? s there on the moon the satel l i t e s that are
on the moon they can see every th i n g aroun d the world . Now
when this one point s it just get the informa t i o n .
Inter v i e w e r : Okay . So it comes fro m th e moon?
Sipho : Yes.
Intervi e w e r : Okay .
Siph o : No, with the Ameri c a n s buil d it there on the moon.
Inte r v i e w e r : Okay . How do you know that? How do you know it?s on the
moo n ?
Sipho : Becaus e of when I watch te levi s i o n I can see that like even there
at Hartebe es when we asked some quest i o n s they also even told
us that every count ry can build it?s own satel l i t e dishe s or
whate v e r it wants to do there on the moon it does.
(swo 0 5 p o s i n t 085- 11 1 )
In Braund and Reiss?s terms, Sipho actively enga ged with his experience at HartRAO, and
learned as a result of that experie n c e (Braund & Reiss, 2004).
5.7 The Extent of Learning
T h e categori s a t i o n of students using their know le d g e level of Big Ideas was then used as
an organi s i n g scheme to determi n e the exte nt of their learning , specific a l l y how they
develop e d their knowle d g e , unders t a n d i n g and ideas (Braun d & Reiss, 2004). The
remai n d e r of this chapt e r exami n e s the stude n t s as a group and de mons t r a t e s the extent to
which they acquire d knowled g e duri n g the visit to the stu dy site. Miles and Huberma n
(1994) recomme n d three ?flows? of analysis activity , name ly data reductio n , data display
and the drawing and verifica tion of conclusions. I have reduced the data from the
interviews conducted with students by categor ising their knowledge of Big Ideas as shown
in Table 5.3. The result s from the respon s e s to the pre- and post-v i s i t inter v i e w s were
coded and converted into tabular for m us ing the softwa r e progra m ATLAS. t i . The
follow i n g sectio n displa y s the reduce d data in the for m of ta bles and bar charts, which are
subse q u e n t l y disc u s s e d and concl us i o n s draw n from them. For each secti o n I provi d e a
short comment to clarify the da ta presente d . In all of the respon s e s lis ted, the numbers of
stude n t s some t i me s vary from the total numbe r intervie w e d and analysed (34: 26 who
visited HartRAO and 8 who vis it e d the plane t a r i u m) . Where va rianc e occurs, I provide an
explan a t i o n in the releva n t sectio n .
134
5.7.1 Preparation for, anticipation of and knowledge regarding the visit
T h e studen t s were going to visit either the planetar i u m or HartRAO, and the visit was
relat e d either to the learn i n g area of natur a l scienc e (NS) or human and social scienc e
(HSS) depend i n g on how the school had impleme n t e d the new curri c ul u m. It was pleasi n g
to see that, prior to their visit over 80% of student s knew both where they were going and
that it related to their school curric u l u m. After the visit, th is figure increa s e d to over 90%.
Nearly 90% of studen t s ? views regardi n g the purpose of the visit related to
educatio n or learning . Prior to the visit, wi tho u t being promp t e d , onl y one student referred
to ?havin g fun? as being part of the visit? s purpose. After the visit, the number of students
who considered the visit was related to learning dropped s light l y , while the number who
relat e d it to ?havi n g fun? increa s e d mark e d l y . This is likel y to have been due to the fact that
I asked whether student s thought ?having fun? was part of the visit?s purpose after they had
return e d , but was not asked prior to the visit (Table 5.4 and Table 5.5).
Table 5.4 Responses to Question B1 and B2: Where are you going/did you go on the
forthcoming visit? What subject and to pic area is/was the visit related to?
Pre-visit Post-visit
Visit location and subject/topic Number
of
students
(n=34)
Percent
age
Number
of
students
(n=34)
Percent
age
Students who knew where they were
going/had gone and what the subject
and topic was
2 7 79 31 91
Students who knew where they were
going/had gone and had an
approximate idea* of the topic
4 12 0 0
Students who didn?t know where
they were going/had gone, but knew
what the subject and topic was
3 9 3 9
Total 3 4 100 34 100
* Answ er s inclu d ed astr o lo g y, exper imen ts and Mars
135
Table 5.5 Purpose of visit: Responses to Qu estion B3: What do you think is/was the
purpose of the visit?
Pre-visit Post-visit
Purpose of visit Number of
students
(n=34)
Percent
age
Number of
students
(n=34)
Percent
age
Related to education or learning 3 0 88 31 91
Related to interest in or
visualisation of space
4 12 3 9
Related to having fun 1 3 16 47
Not related to having fun 0 0 1 3
Related to Mars 1 3 1 3
Purpose unknown or not answered 1 3 1 3
Sever a l stud e n ts gave more than one purpo s e, so the totals do not add to 34 or 100%
O n l y a fifth of the studen t s report e d having done any prepar a t i o n in class, most of who
refer r e d to cover i n g the topic s of space, stars and planet s earl ie r in the year (Figur e 5.1).
However, other than covering the topic in class, no student s described any specific
activi t i e s relat i n g to the visit . There were however six student s who did some prepa r a ti on
for the visi t outside class. Three of these were me mb e r s of a scien c e club at Bokamos o
School who prepared together with a teacher and made a s undial. Two other students did
some privat e readin g , and at l east one student (Banyana ) appear ed to have made the effort
to prepa r e for the visit as a direc t resul t of my initi a l visit to the schoo l , as can be seen from
the followi ng exchang e :
Inter v i e w e r : Okay . Have you been doing any prepa r a t i o n for the visit at
schoo l , rece n t l y ?
Bany an a : Of course . I did a little bit of resear c h .
Inter v i e w e r : You have. Okay . Did you do that your sel f ? Or was it done with
every body in the class?
Bany a n a : I did it my self .
Inte r v i e w e r : Okay . What did you do?
Bany a n a : No, umm? We have books at home.
Interv i e w e r : Uh-hmm .
Bany a n a : About stars, the univer s e and every t h in g . Becaus e we have sort
of like a librar y so, I just wanted to use it?
Inte r v i e w e r : Okay . Right . When did you do that ?
Bany a n a : Umm ? I did that after you came to visit .
(swo 2 0 p r e i n t 17-3 5 )
136
This is an example of how the researc h pro cess, although not planned as an intervention,
had direct bearing on the pre-knowledge of a st udent . Accordi n g to he r pre-vis i t intervi e w
Banya n a had a strong inter e s t in space, whic h would also likely have influenc e d her
decision to prepare on her own.
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 0
No preparation Preparation done in class
recently
Preparation done in class
earlier in year
Preparation done alone or
out of class
%
Figure 5.1 Student preparation for the visit (n=34)
A l l stude n t s expre s s e d that they were looki n g forwa r d to the vi sit , six of them empha t i c a l l y
so. 16 studen t s (47%) indica t e d that learnin g or educati o n was their main reason for
looking forward to the visit. By expressing this, they may have been linking the visit to the
academi c goals of schooli n g . A similar number ( 41%) expre s s e d their antic i p a t i o n in terms
of intere s t , exper i e n c e or excite me n t , but di d not directl y relate it to learnin g . Only 5
stude n t s (15%) refer r e d to the fun or enjoyme nt of such a visit, and three of these had
heard about this aspect from others (Figure 5. 2). However, it is likely that the students
percei v e d me as being ?educa tional?, and answered me in a way that they thought I
expect e d .
137
0
5
1 0
1 5
2 0
2 5
3 0
3 5
4 0
4 5
5 0
Learning: wants to know
more, find out more*
Interest, wants the
experience or is excited*
Fun, enjoyment of visit Unspecified
%
Figure 5.2 Student anticipation of visit.
Some students gave more than one purpose, so the totals do not add to 100%
I aske d these init i a l quest i o n s to deter mi n e if stude n t s knew where th ey were going on their
visit , what subje ct ( s ) in thei r curri c u l u m it was relat e d to, thei r understanding of the
purpo s e of the visit , the exten t to which they ha d prepa r e d for the visit , and what they were
expect i n g from the visit. The majori t y of st udents in my study knew where they were going
and how it was relate d to their schoo l curri c u l um, indic a t i ng that their teach e r s had given
them this basic infor ma t i o n . Nearl y 90% of studen t s were aware that the purpos e of the
visit was related to education or learning, which is not really surpris i n g given that the visit
is organis e d by their teacher s a nd is relat e d to their curri cul u m. It is also possi b l e that
stude n t s relat e d to me, their inter v i e w e r , as a teacher , and gave me that answer they
though t I wanted to hear. Ve ry few students (23%, n=34) reported having done any
prepara t i o n for the visit in class, and none pr ovided any details of what they had been
doing. The museum resear c h litera t u r e on school vi sits suggests that very little is done to
prepar e studen t s for trips to museums and scienc e centre s . Griffi n and Symi ng t o n (1997)
reported from Australia that out of 12 sc hool s going on excurs i o n s to museums , the
studen t s invol v e d from 7 school s repor t e d no prepara t i o n had taken place (beyon d
logis t i c a l arran g e me n t s ) , while the studen t s from a furthe r 4 school s report e d some task-
138
specific preparation such as handing out of workshe e t s . Similar l y , Storksd i e c k (2004) in
Germa n y found that in self- r e p or t inter vi e w s over half the teache r s taking studen t s on a
visit to a plane t ar i u m admi t t e d they did not prepa re studen t s for the visit . Yet there is
conside r a b l e resear c h eviden c e which shows th at prepar a t i on for a vi sit can have a highly
positi ve effect on the studen t s? learni n g expe riences. Kubota and Olstad (1991) showed
that prepar a t i o n by the teache r in reduci n g the novelty of the visit was effecti v e in
impro v i n g cogni t i ve learn i n g for the boys (but not the girls) in their 6 th grade sampl e , while
Anders o n and Lucas (1997) confir me d this for both genders in year 8. Lucas (1999)
demon s t r a t e d that Mr. Jones ? exemp l a r y prepa r a t ion for his class of 10- ye a r - ol d s ? visi t to a
scienc e centre was highly benefi c i a l to his studen t s ? visit. Althou g h a limite d sa mple , my
study suppor t s the resear c h elsewh e r e that pre- vi s i t prepar a t i o n for school visits is not
regarde d as importa n t by most teacher s .
5.8 Knowledge about Big Ideas in astronomy prior to the visit
T h e followi n g questio n s (from Sec tion C of the Interv i e w Schedu l e , Append i x B) were
intende d to ascerta i n student s ? prior knowledg e about Big Idea s in astron o my as described
earlie r in this chapte r , and to determi n e wh ethe r that knowle d g e change d as a result of the
visit to eithe r HartR A O or the plane t a r i u m. The knowle d g e levels referr e d to in the
discussion are those defined in Table 5.3. Where I have appropr i a t e data I use percentages,
while if number s are low I give the actual number s .
5.8.1 Gravity
S t u d i e s of students ? understa n d i n g of gravit y are promin e n t in the resear ch liter at u re . Much
of this resea r c h has been within the subjec t of physic s , and related to student s ?
underst a n d i n g of gravita t i o n a l acceleration, often with respect to applied problems (e.g.
Bar, Zinn, Goldmu n t z & Sneide r , 1994; Guns tone & White, 1981; Palmer, 2001). Another
strand of research ha s been with respect to how gravity is understood in relation to the
Earth (Nussb a u m & Novak, 1976; Schoul t z et al ., 2001; Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992). A
few studie s have examin e d gravit y with respec t to space and spaces h i ps (e.g. Bar et al .,
1997; Treagust & Smith, 1989). There is a degree of overlap in many of these studies, and
they identif y a number of misc onc e p t i o n s that student s and ot hers have about gravity. One
promi n e n t misco n c e p t i o n is that the cause of gr avit y is not relate d to the mass of an object
but is due to someth i n g else, such as air or the Earth?s rotati o n (Borun et al . , 1993 ; Palme r ,
2001). A relate d miscon c e p t i o n that there is no gr avit y in space has been report e d as being
139
very preval e n t among both studen t s and adults . This miscon c e p t i o n seems to be associ a t e d
with the idea that gravi t y requi re s a mediu m in which to operat e (usual l y air), and that
since ther e is no air in space , there will also be no gravi t y . Sever a l resea r c h er s (e.g. Bar et
al . , 1997; Borun et al . , 1993; Moolla, 2003; Watts, 1982) have conduct e d studies which
demonstrate the predominance of the idea. Although the misconce p t i o n may well be linked
to the absenc e of air, it is likel y to be reinfor ce d by image s of weigh t l e s s astro naut s in
space and space s h i p s .
In my study, how the studen t s unders t o o d gr avit y was invest i g a t e d in two main
ways. First, studen t s might refer to the word ?gravi t y ? in their PMMs, which would
norma l l y resul t in some discus s i o n of it duri ng the intervi e w, by pr obing their knowle d g e .
Secondly, students visiting HartRAO were spec ifi c a l l y questi o n e d on their knowledge of
gravity during the structur e d part of the inter v i ew . The in iti al quest i o n they were asked was
?What is gravity ? ? or ?Do you know what grav i t y is?? This was somet i me s rephr a s e d , if
studen t s initia l l y did not answ er , to ?What does [gravi t y ] do? ? Further questions asked
were ?Do you know what causes gravity? ? ?What would gravity be like on the moon? ?
?What about on some wh e r e like Jupite r ? ? ?Does the Earth?s gravity have any effect on the
moon?? and ?Do you think the moon?s gravity ha s any effect on the Ea rth? ? For each of
these questi o n s , depend i n g on the studen t ? s re sponse , further probing of their answer
ensued . Studen t s visi ti n g the planet a r i u m we r e not specifically questioned on gravity
during the structu r e d part of the intervi e w becau s e when the inter v i ew quest i o n s were
planne d , I did not antici p a t e th at the planetar i um show was going to cover gravity in the
detail that it actua ll y did. In retrospe c t , these students should have been asked the same
questions as those visiting HartRAO. Howeve r, two students visiti ng the planetarium who
refer r e d to gravi t y in thei r PMM or the inte rvi e w based on their PMM are include d in the
result s which follow .
Student s showed a substan t i a l ch ange in their overal l knowledg e of gravity after their visit.
Where a s initi a l l y over half the stude nt s were cl assi f i e d at knowled g e level 1, whereby they
knew that it is some sort of pulling (or in some cases pushing) force but knew very little
else, after the visit this num ber had dropped to 3. The number of students at knowledge
level 2 showed a slight increase (by 2 student s) after the visit. However, the number of
studen t s at level 2.5 and 3 increa s e d from 2 to 9 studen t s , indica t i n g a considerable shift in
knowledg e across the group. Only one student did not know what gravity was either before
140
or after the visit. Fi gure 5.3 shows students? overall conc eption of gravity both prior to and
afte r thei r visi t .
0
2
4
6
8
1 0
1 2
1 4
1 6
Level 0 Level 1 Level 1.5 Level 2: Level 2.5: Level 3
Number
o
f s
tude
nt
s Pre-visit
Post-visit
Figure 5.3 Students? conceptions of gravity (Pre-visit: n=28; post-visit: n=27)
P r i o r to the visit, 23 out of 28 students who were asked specific a l l y gave some sort of
defin i t i o n of gravi t y durin g their inter v i e w . Of these, 20 gave an accepta b l e , partial
scient i fi c answe r (rela t i v e to school grade 7-8) to the quest i o n ?What is gravi t y? ? by
stati n g that it is some type of pulli n g forc e . The major i t y of these stude n t s refer r e d to a pull
towar d s the Earth . These ideas held by stude n t s are consi s t en t with much of the liter a t u re
(from Bar et al ., 1997; to Nussbaum & Novak, 1976) wh ereb y studen t s identi f y object s as
falli n g down toward s the Earth . The 3 student s who didn? t ident i fy gravi t y as a pullin g
force downwards referred to it ?pulling you up? to ?holding us up?. These notions are not
consis t e n t with most descri pt i o ns in the l itera t u r e but may refer to gravity stopping us
?falli n g off the Earth? , a common idea in the re searc h litera t ur e (e.g. Vosnia d o u & Brewer,
1992). After the visit the definit i o n s of gr avit y elici t e d from th e students were not
substan t i a l l y differ e n t from those expres s e d befo r e the visit . I consi d er it unsurprising that
there was little change in students? definiti o n s of gravity, as neith er of the study sites
discu s s e d the meaning of the word gravity , or defined it as a concept .
141
However, a fuller understa n d i n g of the concep t of grav it y is likely to in volve not just the
idea that it involv e s a pullin g fo rce , but that a stude n t can expan d their defin i t i o n to invol v e
what cause s gravi t a t i o na l force , or how it occu r s withi n the solar system. Stude n t s in the
study were asked about the cause of gravity duri ng their pre-vis i t interv iew only if they had
already expres s e d some ideas about gravit y . De spi t e the preva l e n c e in the liter a t ur e of the
idea that gravi t y is re late d to the presen c e of air (B erg & Brewer, 1991; Palmer , 2001)) ,
only 2 studen t s during their inte rvie w specific a l l y spoke about gravity being related to an
atmos p h e r e . Howev e r , other stude nt s state d in their PMMs that in space there is no air and
no gravity , indica t i n g a possibl e relat i o n s h i p betwe e n the tw o. One student stated that
gravity is somehow related to rocky plane t s , and this idea was alluded to by a number of
other studen t s who sugges t e d that a gas planet is unlikel y to have gravity. Four students
stated that they did not know what caused gr avity and only three students were able to
expla i n that gravi t y is relat e d to mas s or si ze. After the visit, only one student thought that
gravity might be caused by the atmosph e r e , while 10 student s now were able to explain
that gravit y is relate d to the mass (or size) of an object .
Most students who visited HartRAO were asked about their know ledge of gravity
on Jupite r and the Moon as shown in Figure 5.4 and Figure 5.5. The number of studen t s in
these chart s is lower than the total who vis ited HartRAO as some st uden t s did not discus s
these issues if they lacked knowledg e about gravity generall y . Figure 5.4 shows that prior
to their visit, the majorit y of student s (12) believed there would be no gravity on Jupiter.
Most students did not give reasons for their belief, but those that did ascr i b e d it to the lack
of an at mo sp h e r e , it ?being in space? , or being gaseou s . After the visit, there was a
substa n t i a l increa s e in the nu mber of studen t s (from 4 to 12) who underst o o d that the
gravity on Jupiter is high. The number who sa id there is no or lo w gravity on Jupiter
decrease d from 12 to 8, and the number of ?don?t knows? decrea s e d to 3. These figure s
suggest that the students ? vis it changed their know ledge about Jupiter?s gravity towards a
more accept e d scient i f i c view.
142
0
2
4
6
8
1 0
1 2
1 4
Stated that there is gravity and
that it is high
Stated there is no or low gravity Don?t know
Number
o
f s
tude
nt
s Pre-visit
Post-visit
Figure 5.4 Students? ideas of gravity on Jupiter (n=24)
B e f o r e the visit, 9 student s knew that gravity on the Moon is less than that of Earth, while
12 believe d that there is no gr avity on the moon, and several of these students referred to
being able to ?float ? or ?fly ? above the Moon?s surface . Ther e appears to be confusio n in
some student s ? minds betwee n being ?in space? (where many student s believe there is no
gravity) and being ?on the Moon? . As the Moon is ?in space?, there is a conflation between
the two, and student s may believe that being distant from th e Earth, in an envi ron me n t
where there is no air (?space ? ) result s in th ere being no gravity . This misconc e p t i o n is
consi s t e n t with the liter a t u r e (e.g. Palmer 2001) and was not necess a r i l y correc t e d during
the visit . After the visit , the numbe r of st udents who knew that there is gravity on the
Moon increa s e d to 19. Simila r l y , the number of studen t s who believ e d there is no gravity
on the Moon dropped to 5, and the number of students who were uncertai n dropped to one
(Figure 5.5). These figures indica te that the visit assisted students to change their mind
about the absence or presenc e of gravity on the Moon, and to adopt a more scienti f i c
concept i o n . The majorit y of student s who we re question e d about the Moon and gravity
visited HartRAO. The features of the visit may have account e d for their chang e in view
were likely to have been the Coke can exhibit , the ?gravi t y scales? and a slide show about
143
the Moon landings. Six student s changed their ideas regard ing gravity on both Jupiter and
the Moon to a scienti f i c a l l y accept e d concep t i o n .
0
2
4
6
8
1 0
1 2
1 4
1 6
1 8
2 0
Stated that there is gravity and
that it is low
Stated there is no gravity Don?t know
Number
o
f s
tude
n
ts
Pre-visit
Post-visit
Figure 5.5 Students? ideas of gravity on the Moon (n=25)
5.8.2 Stars and the Sun
T h e word ?stars? was provided to students on their blank Person a l M eaning Map, while 25
stude n t s (74%) refer r e d to the Sun of their own volition in th eir PMM. Prior to the visit ,
nearly half of the studen t s (44%) had a very mi nima l knowl e d g e of what a star is (leve l 1):
they typica l l y referr e d to stars as lights in th e night sky, and they had no idea of stars? size,
compo s i t i o n or positi o n in space. These stude nt s gave no indi ca t i o n that stars are actual l y
suns or that our Sun is a st ar. Slight l y more student s did understand that stars are suns
(level 2), and they typically gave the defini t i on of a star as a ? burning ball of gas?.
Howeve r , this catego r y of studen t s posses s e d vario u s misco n c e p t i o n s about stars in terms
of their size, compo s i t i on or posit i on in space , and examp l e s of these misco n c e p t i o n s can
be found in the student portra its in Chapters 7 and 8. Two studen t s (6%) from the same
school could give a fully scien tific explanation of stars (lev el 3) with no misconce p t i o n s
and furthe r elabor a t e d on aspect s of star co mpos i t i o n . After the visit there was a 20% shift
from a minima l knowl e d g e of a star (leve l 1) towards level 2, while only 1 student
144
increa s e d their knowle d g e of stars to catego r y 3. While I cannot deter mi n e wheth e r this
shift is signi fi c a n t , there is a trend towar d s an improved scientific understanding of stars,
shown in Figure 5.6.
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 0
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
%
Pre-visit
Post-visit
Figure 5.6 Students? conceptions of stars (n=34)
A n a l y s i s of students ? concepti o n s of the S un are based on their answers to questio n s
HartRA O C1 (?how is the sun simi l a r or differ e n t to stars? ? ) and C2 (stude n t s were asked
about the day?s temper a t u r e , boilin g water temp e r a t u r e and the Sun?s tempera t u r e , before
being further asked ?What else can you tell me about the Sun? ?). Students visiting the
plane t a r i u m were asked C3 (?Tel l me anything you know about the Sun?).
Prior to the visit, one quarte r of the studen t s had a relative l y na?ve concept of the Sun
(level 1) as bigger and brighte r than stars , as oc curring during the day and with proper t i e s
such as being fiery and hot. None of these stude n t s referr e d to the Sun being a star. Half of
the studen t s had a more sophis t i c a t e d scien t i f i c id ea of the Sun (level 2) : as a star, often the
bigges t star, but no explan a t i o n of size as be ing appar e n t and relate d to distance. These
stude n t s refer r e d to simil a r prope r t i e s as th e first group, but tended to also include
additi o n a l scient i f i c facts such as gas, and energy. The rema ining quarter of students had
substan t i a l knowle d g e of the Sun (level 3) in relation to scal e, as the closest but not the
145
biggest star. Some of this gr oup also referre d to facts ab out the Sun indicating a more
advanced understa n d i n g , such as ultra-vi o l e t light, nuclear react i o ns and the Sun?s age and
future.
After the visit consi de r abl y fewer stude n t s (9%) held the mo st na?ve conce p t i o n of the Sun.
Compa r e d with the pre- v i s i t resul t s, fewer stude n t s (41% instea d of 50%) held level 2,
while half the student s now had the most subs tantial knowledge of the Sun (level 3). These
findings (Figure 5.7) indicate that students show e d a more devel o p e d understanding of the
Sun during the post-visit interviews than they did prior to their visit.
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
%
Pre-visit
Post-visit
Figure 5.7 Students? conceptions of the Sun (n=34)
F e w studie s have been report e d in the literat u r e about student s ? conceptions of stars or the
Sun (Bailey & Slater, 2003). Sh arp (1996) explored the ideas of 42 10- and 11-year-olds in
Englan d and showed that most had a basic knowle d g e of the Sun?s shape, compos i t i o n and
posit i o n . Howev e r , only 57% were sure that it was a star. The same stude n t s ? knowl e d g e of
stars was much less clear , and consi s t e d mainl y of obser v a t i o n a l and st yli s e d descr i pt i o n s.
Comi ns (2001) indicated that undergraduate students do not understand that the Sun and
stars are essen t i a l l y the same, as well as holdin g severa l other miscon c e p t i o n s .
146
Agan (2004) worked with small number s of high school and univers i t y studen t s in
a study of their understanding of stars, and one of her inte rview questions was almost
ident i c a l to my C1. My findi n g s for compa r a b l e age ranges (12 to 14 years in my study and
14 to 15 years in Agan?s resea r c h ) are simila r . Pr ior to their visit , over three quart e r s of the
students in my study had knowledg e of the Sun as a star. Agan ?s 8 students did recognise
the Sun as a star, but believ e d that it is the bigge st star, as did 6 of th e stude n t s in my study .
My student s ? knowled g e of the Sun appeare d to be mor e sophisticat e d after th e visit,
showin g a greate r abilit y to name sun co mposit i o n , properti e s and evolutio n . More
import a n t l y , severa l studen t s seemed to have gained a greate r unders t a n d i n g of scale, as
they now relat e d the Sun as being close r than the other stars as the reaso n that it appea r s
bigger. Agan?s senior high school and university undergraduates were ab le to explain this,
but not the studen t s close to the age range of those in my study.
5.8.3 The Solar system
A l t h o u g h both study sites provide d student s with informa t i o n about the solar system, only
the 8 student s visiti n g the planeta r i u m were sp ecifi c a l l y questio n e d about it, but the results
from this questi o n are inconc l u s i v e probab l y due to the small numbe r s invol v e d . All I can
deduce from Figure 5.8 is that after the visit there were no studen t s who had no scien t i fi c
concep t i o n of what the solar syst em is, wherea s prior to the visit there was one studen t in
this category.
147
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Number
Pre-visit
Post-visit
Figure 5.8 Students? conceptions of the Solar System (n=8)
A cleare r assess me n t of what student s learnt fr om the visit is gaine d from an exami n a t i o n
of their PMMs which demon s t r a t e addit i o na l fact s about the planet s , partic u l a r l y ones such
as Mercur y (clos es t to the Sun and hotte st ) , Pluto (furthes t from the Sun and coldest) ,
Jupit er (the bigge s t ) , Mars (vari o u s facts as it had been in the news recen t l y ) and the Earth
(as the most fa mili a r planet ) . Both study sites provid e d this sort of informa t i o n about the
Solar System, so an increase in factual knowledge about indi vidual planets is the most
likely outcome . Only 4 students (a nd one student from pilot interviews) referred to there
being other solar syste ms aroun d other stars after the visit.
5.8.4 Size and scale
S i z e and scale as a Big Idea is a compos i t e esti mation of a student?s kno wledge of the size
of the Sun, stars, the Moon a nd other heavenl y bodies as we ll as his or her understa n d i n g
of distan c e withi n the solar syste m and be yond. Studen t s ? knowle d g e and appreci a t i o n of
size and scale in the solar syst e m (and for some students the universe as well) improved
consid e r a b l y over the period betw een the pre-visit and post-vis it interviews. Students at the
lowest level, with confuse d and conflic t i n g ideas about size and scale decrea s e d from 15%
to 6%; only 2 studen t s rema in e d at knowle d g e level 1, and they both showed the least
148
chang e in all the Big Idea categ o r i e s acros s the study (see Chapter 7). Student s with an
apparen t scienti f i c knowled g e (levels 2 and 2.5) decrea s e d while level 3 studen t s increa s e d
from 20% to 48% (Figur e 5.9). Since both stu dy sites dealt with variou s aspec t s of both
size and scale, it is likely th at the visit itself was mainly responsi b l e for the change in
knowle d g e , and was succes s f u l in doing so. Given that Trumpe r ? s work (Trumpe r , 2001a ,
2001b) suggests that this is on e of the weakest areas of high school knowledg e in Israel,
my study sugges t s that astron o my - r e l a t e d scienc e cen tres are effective sites to get this type
of knowledge and understanding across to students.
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 0
Level 1 Level 2 Level 2.5 Level 3
%
Pre-visit
Post-visit
Figure 5.9 Students? conceptions of size and scale
I n relat i o n to size and scale, a specif i c quest i o n relat i n g to the relat i ve size of the Sun and
Moon and the explana t i o n for this was asked.
Knowled g e levels for this questi o n were define d as follow s :
Level 1: D o e s not know relati v e
sizes of sun & moon, thinks
moon is larger than sun, or
think s they are the same size.
Distan c e may not have been
asked.
Level 2: R e l a t i v e size of sun
and moon is correc t , but studen t
does not underst a n d relati v e
distan c e of sun and moon
correct l y , or cannot explain the
diffe r e n c e in size .
Level 3: S t u d e n t has
correct concept i o n s of the
relat i v e size and dista n c e
of the sun and moon
149
Like a number of other question s (e.g. question s on stars and gravity) I asked this question
to determi n e whethe r studen t s could not only relate scale a nd size in the sky, but give
reasons for why objects look si milar or different in size . Many students do know the
diffe r e n c e in size of the moon and the sun, but can they expla i n why they look the same
size in the sky? If they can, then they understa n d more about scale in the solar system. The
questi o n only determi n e d the relative size of the Sun and the Moon, not the extent of the
Sun?s magni tu d e in relatio n to the Moon.
Prior to the visit , just over half the st udent s (19 student s , 56%) had a scienti f i c a l l y
correc t concep t of the relativ e size of the Sun in relatio n to the Moon (level 3), and could
also explai n that their appare n t si mi l a r i t y in size is due to the fact that the Moon is closer to
the Earth than the Sun. Before going on the vi sit, 12 students (35%) did know that the Sun
is larger than the Moon, but could not explai n why they looked the sa me size in the sky in
terms of thei r relat i v e dist a nc e s from the Earth (level 2). Taking these two categori e s
togeth e r , the vast majori t y of studen t s (91% ) did know that the Sun is larger than the
Moon, and only 3 studen t s though t that the Moon is larger than the Sun or that the 2
object s are the same size. After the visit the pe rcen t a g e of studen t s in category 3 (scientific
concep t i o n ) increa s e d to 69%, and all students could describe the Sun as being larger than
the Moon. The percent a g e of student s in categor y 2 decreas e d slight l y after the visit, and
no student s rema in e d at knowled g e level 1 (F igure 5.10). These result s are in line with
Summers and Mant?s study of British primar y school teache r s , most of whom kne w the
relati v e sizes of the Moon and th e Earth (Summe r s & Mant, 1995).
150
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 0
8 0
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
%
Pre-visit
Post-visit
Figure 5.10 Students? knowledge of the size of the Sun and Moon (n=34 pre-visit, n=29 post-
visit)
5.8.5 Day and Night
U n d e r s t a n d i n g the cause of day and night is an importan t st ep in understanding how the
Earth-Su n - M o o n system works. Instead of asking why day and night occur I asked ?Why
does the Sun move across the sky each day? ? to determi n e whethe r studen t s could explai n
the apparent motion of the Sun across the sky as being due to the Ea rth spinning. However,
in discus si on with collea g u e s while analy s i n g my data, I have consi d e r e d that the
question ? s phrasing might have prompted a par tic ul a r type of answer , which I initia l l y
classi f i e d as teleol o g i c a l 1 2 , and the implica t i o n s of this are discussed below. After the
initia l quest i o n was asked, I handed each studen t a model Earth globe and a torch to
repres e n t the Sun, and asked them to use these to elabor a t e on their ex planation (?show me
what?s happenin g ? ) with relevant promptin g .
Prior to the visit, 25 of the student s ( 74%) could explai n the cause of the Sun?s
motion (level s 2 and 3), but of these, 10 (30%) neede d the ?prompt ? of the model in order
to expla i n the conce p t in an accept a bl e scien t i f i c manne r . In knowle d g e categ o r i e s 2 and 3
12 Teleo log y is a bran ch of philo soph y which ascr ib es desig n or purpo se to natur al phen omen a.
151
four studen t s also used a ?teleo l o g i c a l ? answ e r as their first expl an a t i o n of why the Sun
moves. Nine studen t s (26%) showed confus i o n in the explan a t i o n of day and night (level
1) even when they had the assi st a nc e of the model. This catego r y include d student s who
confu s e d day and night on the mode l (or maint a i n e d miscon c e p t i o n s su ch as revolution of
the Earth around the sun as the cause of day and night) and ?teleo l o gical? explanations
(Figur e 5.11).
After the visit, ther e was little chang e ove ral l in studen t s ? concep t i o n s of why the
sun moves acros s the sky. While there was a sligh t incre a s e of students who could explain
the Sun?s motion (now 79%), a similar number (32%) still relied on the model to assist
their explana t i o n . There was a slight decrea s e in the number of student s who showed
confus i o n in their explan a t i o n of day and ni ght , but it is unlik e l y that this number is
signif i c a n t . As the sa mp le s were not randoml y select e d , it would not be valid to carry out
signi f i c a nc e tests . The impor t a n c e of my findin g s in this knowle d g e area is that the use of a
model as a prompt in the interv i e w proces s ch anges student response s , as discuss e d later in
this sectio n .
0
5
1 0
1 5
2 0
2 5
3 0
3 5
4 0
4 5
5 0
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
%
Pre-visit
Post-visit
Figure 5.11 Students? conceptions of the cause of day and night (n=34)
152
Severa l studie s (e.g. Baxter , 1989; Dove, 2002; Kikas, 1998a; Sadler , 1998; Sharp,
1996) have asked studen t s to explain the cause of day and night, usually as part of a larger
study . The most influe n t i a l piece of resear c h was conduct e d by Vosniad o u and Brewer
(1994) in which they postula t e d a series of me nta l model s held by children ranging from
age 6 to 11 years. All the 16 peer-re v i e w e d st udies used test questi ons, questionnaires or
inter v i e w s to elici t infor ma t i o n from thei r subjects, often encour agi n g them to draw
diagrams . Only three used models as part of the inter vi e w proce s s . The inten t i o n of my
asking the questi o n in the way I did was to try and determi n e whether the student s could
relate direct observation of the Sun ?moving? acros s the sky to the conce p t of the Earth
spinnin g . During each intervi e w , after asking the in itial questions, I showed the student a
model of the Earth (a small globe) and hand ed her or him a small torch, which I said
represe n t e d the Sun. I then invited the student to expand on what he or she had already
said, but now using the model. I also probed as necess a r y , to determi n e the studen t ? s own
underst a n d i n g of what she or he was explai n i n g . In asking the questio n , I deliber a t e l y
avoide d referr i n g to the apparent moveme n t of the Sun across the sky, as I consid e r e d that
this would cue the students towards a scientific rather than their ow n explanation. In my
initia l coding , I identi fie d a type of explanation which I cl assi f i e d as ?teleo l o gi c a l ? ,
whereby the student explained the reason why the Sun move d across the sky as being ?in
order to do somet h i n g ? , such as to give light or heat to the people on the other side of the
Earth. Original l y propound e d by Plato and Aristo tl e , current adherent s of teleolog y are
mainl y religi o u s belie v er s who argue that the purpo s e in natur e can be attri b u t e d to the
presenc e of a Supreme Being or God.
Althou g h I consid e r that severa l stateme n t s made by studen t s can be consid e r e d
teleol o g i c a l , it is possibl e that the questio n ?Why does th e Sun?.? was interpre t e d by
some studen t s to requir e an answer in which the Sun?s mo veme n t does have a purpose .
However, when presente d with a globe a nd asked for a furthe r explan a t i o n , studen t s
underst o o d this cue to mean that they now had to give an explana t o r y answer, which they
accordi n g l y did. As shown in Figure 5.11, prior to the visit nearl y half the stude nt s were
able to expla i n the appar e n t cause of the sun?s move ment as being due to the Earth?s
rotation without the use of th e model as a suppor t for this explan a t i o n . I regard it as
impor t a n t that such stude n t s were able to expl ain in scienti f i c terms withou t the use of the
model (and yet could also use it corr e c t l y to assi s t thei r expla n a t i o n) . The most intere s t i n g
group of students were the ones (10 before the visit and 11 after the vi sit) who started their
153
expla n a t i o n in a somewh a t confu s e d ma nne r , and it was only when the model was
avail a b l e that they coul d provi d e the scient i f i c a l l y acceptab l e explanat i o n of day and night.
For exampl e Lara, in her pre-vi s i t interv i e w ga ve an explanation for the sun?s move me nt as
the Earth?s revoluti o n . As she is not presented as a portrait in Chapter 7 or 8 I show the
transcr i p t of her inter vi ew s here.
Lara: It?s the Eart h that ? s revo lv in g arou nd the sun.
Interv i e w e r : Okay .
Lara: Which cause s it to rise and [inau d i b l e ]
I then introd u c e d the model, and asked her to explai n the ph eno me n o n using it:
Interv i e w e r : Okay . So, if you have the s un here and that? s the sun [the torch ],
you hold that . What? s going on for the ever y day risi ng and
setti n g ?
Lara: The Earth is movin g like this. No, yes, I?m right . And then the
Earth rotat e s and then every year the Earth revol v e s
(scf1 0 p r e i n t 61-69 )
At this point the student, by manipulating the model is realis i n g that while the Earth does
revolv e aroun d the Sun, it also ro tate s . Furthe r probin g result s in the student realisin g that
the Earth?s rotation is the cause of the Sun?s apparent move ment (day and night), and not
its orbit .
Less than a quarte r of the signif i c a n t studi e s on stude n t s ? and teache r s?
understanding of day and night repo rt e d in the litera t u r e used m odels as part of their data
collection process. A recent paper by Schoultz et al. (2001) criticised Vosniadou and her
associ a t e s for failin g to use a globe when que stion i n g children about the Earth and gravity
(Vosnia d o u and Brewer 1992). Using a situat ed and discursive framework, Schoultz et al.
claim that the introd u c t i o n of a globe to an intervi e w results in su bstantially different
respon s e s from childr e n (ages 7 ? 11) than in the Vosnia d o u study in which the childr e n
had to think abstra c t l y . Schoul t z et al. show that the childre n ? s concep t i o n of the Earth as a
globe and gravity as an ?e xplanatory resource? (p. 114) are more prevalen t in young
childre n than Vosniad o u had found. Schoult z ? s findin g s have been critic i s e d by Candel a
(2001) for exclud i n g a cognit i ve expl an a t i o n , an d very recentl y Vosniado u has rebutte d the
claims made by Schoult z and colleag u e s . Vosniad o u et al . (2005) conducted a study of
grade s 1 to 3 using a globe to repre s e n t the Ea rt h . Whil e they admi t that the prese n c e of the
globe can assist with childre n ? s thinki n g , they consi d e r that it can bias the resul t s of the
study, by provid i n g a ready- ma d e concep t i o n of the Earth.
154
In my study of childre n several years ol der than those studie d by Vosnia d o u or
Schoul t z , I found that the presen ce of the Earth-Sun mode l wa s a valuable tool in the
inter v i e w proce s s . By the time childr e n reac h the age of 12 years, a globe would be the
accep t e d ?cult u r a l artef a c t ? to repr e s e n t the Ea rth. Therefo r e , the finding s for my study are
for children significantly olde r than those in the Vosniado u and Schoultz studies and can
neithe r confir m nor dispro v e the claims of e ithe r side. What my re sults show however , is
that the use of a model as a ?p rop ? to disc u s s the relat i v e moti on of the Earth and the Sun is
very valuable , as it directs children ? s thinking to respond to the questi on asked, rather than
abstra c t l y discus s i n g the notion of the Earth? s orbit round the Sun, whi ch seems to be the
first thing responde n t s refer to wh en asked about day and night.
Parker and Heywood (1998) and Cameron (2003) have referr e d to the confusion of
orbit and spin and the terms revolve and rotate by the parti c i p a n t s in their studi e s . Parker
and Heywoo d were workin g with pre- se r vi c e pr ima r y teach e r s , many of whom admi t t e d to
being concep t u a l l y confus e d betwee n orbit and spin, and used a variety of words such as
move round, goes round and turns . 20 of Ca meron?s 54 univers i t y stud e nts used the terms
rotation and revolution incorr ec t l y , these terms appea ri n g to be more widel y used in the
South African context than orbit and spin. Si mila r confus i o n was prevale n t in my study. In
answer to ?Why does the Sun mo ve across the sky every day? ? Sarah responded as
follo w s :
Sarah : Becaus e our Earth revol v e s .
Inter v i e w e r : Okay . Can you show me w ith this ? [hand s stud e n t mode l ] This
is the ? There is the sun. Can you hold the sun up? What? s
goi n g on?
Sarah: The Earth is turni n g .
Here Sarah uses the term ?revo l v e ? but actua l l y means rotat e . Havin g initi al l y used the
incorr e c t term, she then co rrec t l y uses the model to demons t r a t e night and day:
Interviewer: Okay. So if Africa is faci n g the sun like that [stud e n t is point in g
torc h at Afri c a on the globe ]. What? s on ?? What? s goin g on
now in Afric a ? At this poin t .
Sara h : It?s day lig h t .
Inter v i e w e r : It?s day lig h t . Right . And the other side of the Earth ?
Sara h : It?s nigh t .
(scf 1 2 p r e i n t 117- 1 33 )
The import a n c e of this confus i o n , whethe r it is conceptual confusion between orbit and
spin or confusion of terms (rotation and revolu t i o n look and sound simila r , which may
155
present difficulties for second-language English speake r s ) is that it has implic a t i o n s for
researc h e r s who use questio n n a i res (or interviews without a model prese n t ) to deter mi n e
subjec t s ? unders t a n d i n g of the day/ni g h t conce p t . There is consi d e r a bl e furth e r poten t i al
room for confusi o n . Eight studen t s (24% of the sample) used the phrase ?rotat i n g around
the sun?, which could mean that the Earth rota tes (on its axis), while it is orbitin g the Sun.
It doesn?t necessarily mean revolving around the Sun. One student al so used the phrase
?surro u n d i n g the sun?, meanin g the Earth goes round (orbit s ) the Sun. These exampl e s
demonstr a t e that educator s and research e r s need to be very carefu l in both their use and
interpretation of what students me an when they expre ss thems e l v e s . An examp l e is
Summe r s and Mant (1995 ) , who asked a serie s of true/fa l s e questi o n s which includ e d The
Sun goes round the Earth once in 24 hours and The Earth moves around the Sun once in
24 hours . While only 7% of the teach e r s agree d with the first stat e me n t , 32% agree d with
the second. Althoug h this appears to indicat e th at the teache r s beli eve the Earth revolves
around the Sun once a day, causing day and night their answer may merely represent
confus i o n of the terms and not a miscon ce p t i o n of how day and night occur.
5.8.6 The Moon Phases
R e s e a r c h into people ? s knowle d g e of the Moon? s phase s is exten s ive in the literature which
shows that while subject s can describ e the pha ses they do not necessar ily know the order in
which they appear or why they occur. Although I asked all students about Moon phases in
the pre- v i si t inter v i e w , I only quest i o n e d 19 stude n t s about it after the visit , so the resul t s
are limit e d . Prio r to their visi t , only five st ude nt s (15%) were able to give a satisfactory
scienti f i c explana t i o n for the Moon phases (level 3), in wh ich the sun?s rays shining on the
Moon as it revolve s around the Earth was explained. A furthe r four (12%) could give a
parti a l scient i fi c expl a n at i o n (level 2.5), but these stude nt s also inclu de d a misco n c e p t i o n
in their explan a t i o n , such as the idea that the views of the phases are due to the Earth?s
rotation. The 7 students (20 %) at knowledg e level 2 had eith er a limited explanation (2
studen t s) or referr e d to miscon c e p t i o n s about the phases : either the Earth?s shadow falling
on the Moon (2 studen t s ) or someth i n g comi ng betwee n the Moon and the Earth result i ng
in the Moon being ?eclip s e d ? (3 studen t s ) . Over half the students (53%) did not know the
cause of the Moon phases (level 1) and we re prepare d to state this (Figure 5.12).
Of the 19 studen t s asked about the Moon pha ses in the post visit interviews, there
was little differen c e in students ? ability to explain the phases of the Moon. Neither of the
156
study sites discussed the phenomenon in any deta il, so the lack of change in knowledge is
to be expected.
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
Level 1 Level 2 Level 2.5 Level 3
%
Pre-visit
Post-visit
Figure 5.12 Students? explanation of Moon phases (Pre-visit n=34; post-visit n=19)
5.8.7 Parabolic/Satellite Dishes
D u e to the physica l domi na n c e of satelli t e and paraboli c dishes and the activity on
?whisp e r dishes ? at HartRA O , I though t it appr opri a t e to ask students about them. Pr ior to
their visit, nearly half the student s had a limited knowle d g e of satellit e dish es (levels 1 and
1.5): they did not know where a dish might point towar d s , and had little or no idea of the
reason for its shape. 38% could either explai n the reaso n for the shape of the dish or where
it might point to but not both (level 2), wherea s only 4 studen t s (15%) had a more
sophist i c a t e d knowled g e (level 2.5 or 3) of dishes (Figure 5.13). After the visit students
had develope d in several knowle dge areas, with fewer studen t s at the lower levels and
nearly half who could explain where the dish point s towar d s and the reason for its shape
(thoug h 19% needed probin g to detect this knowle d g e ) . Most of studen t s ? prior knowle d g e
of satel l i t e dish e s come s from thei r expe r i e n ce of seeing such dishes on buildings used for
satelli t e televis i o n . Student s who appear e d to extend their knowle d g e as a result of the visit
157
are likely to have done so due to the activi t y using the whis pe r dish as well as observ i n g
the radi o telesc o p e pointi n g to stars in space.
0
5
1 0
1 5
2 0
2 5
3 0
3 5
4 0
4 5
Level 1 Level 1.5 Level 2 Level 2.5 Level 3
%
Pre-visit
Post-visit
Figure 5.13 Students? conceptions of parabolic/satellite dishes (n=26; only HartRAO
students)
5.9 Summary of collective learning
F o r the 5 main Big Ideas (gravi t y , stars, Sun, Solar System, size and scale) there is a shift
from level 1 towards levels 2 and 3 between the pre- and post- vi si t inter vi e w s (Figu r e
5.14). Broadly, this suggests that students ch anged their knowledge of Big Ideas from a
less to a more scienti f i c notion . In the cases of gravity , stars and the Solar System the shift
was most marke d from level 1 to level 2 (more than 15%). In the case s of the Sun and size
and scale the shift was greater toward s level 3 (more than 15%). Howeve r , the Solar
Syste m was based on relati v e l y small numbe r s of students and interpre tation of changes in
level shoul d be appro ached with caution.
158
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 0
8 0
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Per
cen
ta
g
e
Gravity
Stars
Sun
Solar System
Size and Scale
Figure 5.14 Summary of percentage changes in levels for 5 Big Ideas
T h e changes in knowled g e level for the two signif i c a n t ideas of ?day and night? and the
Moon phases , as well as the domina n t artefa c t the satelli t e dish are shown in Figure 5.15
which shows a similar trend to that of Figur e 5.14, although the shifts involved for day and
night are less marked than those for the 5 main Big Ideas. The Moon phases show a shift
from level 1 to level 2, but no shift towa r d s level 3.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Per
cen
ta
ge
Day and Night
Moon Phases
Satellite Dish
Figure 5.15 Summary of percentage changes in levels for significant ideas and dominant
artefact.
159
These shifts sugges t that (at the least) shor t-term increases in students? knowledge have
occurr e d betwee n the pre- and post-v i s i t intervi e w s , and that it is likel y that the visit itself
was respon s i b l e for the change . My result s c onfirm the findings of other researchers such
as Anderson et al . (2000) and Lucas (2000) who have also noted changes in knowledge
due to scienc e centre visits . Howeve r , these Austra l i a n studie s also involve d post-vi s i t
activi t i e s condu c t e d by teache r s with stude nt s on their return to the classro om , not
availa b l e to the studen t s in my st udy. Falk and Dierkin g (2000) also relate various
evalua t i o n studie s they have conduc t e d that demons t r a t e increa s e d learning by visitors on
exiting mus e ums .
The findin g s prese nt e d in this chapte r answe r my first rese a r c h quest i o n ?To what
extent do students learn in the process of a vis it to a planet a ri u m and the visit or s ? cent r e of
an astronomical observatory?? They demonstr a t e that learni n g does occur over the course
of a visit , and that in the cas e of some Big Ideas (partic ul a r l y gravity, stars, the Sun, size
and scale , and the satel l i t e dish) the learni n g itsel f is signi fi c a n t . In terms of scien c e
liter a c y , the lower dime n s i o n s (?kno w i n g a lot of science ? ) of Durant (1993) and Shamos
(1995) are being addresse d by both the planetarium and HartRAO.
Howev e r , in addit i o n to deter mi n i n g what is learnt durin g a visit, my inten t i o n in
this thesi s is to demon s t r a t e how knowledge is acquired. The fo ll o w i n g chapt e r s return the
reader to the theoretical fr ame w o r k of human const r u c t i v ism which underpins the study,
analy s e the theor y in terms of the cogni t i ve , affec t i ve and conat i v e domai n s , and prese nt
analyse s of learnin g by selecte d student s .
160
Chapter 6
6 A Human Constructivist Analysis of Learning
?That people learn in museums is easy to state, harder to prove? (Falk and
Dierking 2000). Using Human Constructi vism as a framework for identifying
how learning can occur, this chapter dem onstrates a typology of learning at my
study sites. Combined with the notion of Big Ideas from Chapter 5, it provides
a framework for categorising the students according to their degree of learning
about astronomy.
6.1 Introduction
C h a p t e r 4 provided a context for my study, showing the visi ts to the planetarium and
HartRAO from the viewpoi n t of two student s . It also prese n t e d some findi n g s fr om the
study in narrati v e form, enablin g the reader to gain some insight s into how student s
experie n c e a visit to a science centre. Chapter 5 provided detailed findi ngs of what student s
collec t i ve l y lear n t , showi n g that the major i t y of them were able to increa se thei r
knowle d g e and unders t a n d i n g of Big Ideas in astrono my after their visit. Althoug h Big
Ideas were used as an organis i n g tool fo r comp a r t me n t a l i si n g the astro n o my know l e d g e ,
the concep t knowle d g e levels I identi f i e d in Chapter 5 were derived from the data, using
inductiv e coding of the Persona l Meani n g Maps and interv i e w transcripts. While this
method was satisf a c t o r y for findin g out what students learnt, it wa s not so easy to tell how
student s were learni n g . I theref o r e drew on my theore t i c a l frame wo r k of Human
Constr u c t i v i s m, and used catego r i e s of learni n g previo u s l y identi f i e d by other resea r c h e r s
to classi f y how studen t s learnt during the course of their visit. In other words, while I used
bottom- u p coding to identi f y what studen t s we re learni n g , I used top-do w n coding to
ascertain how they learnt. Henning (2004) stat es that ?the true test of a compe t e n t
qualit a t i v e resear c h e r come s in the analysi s of the data? (p 101), and suggests that the
design logic of the study needs to relate to bot h the forms of analysi s and the actual data
colle c t e d . This chapt e r descr i be s how I analys e d indivi d u a l studen t s ? learni n g and attempt s
to explain what sort of ment al processes are taking plac e as the learning occurs. The
chapt er intro d u c e s categ o r i e s of knowledge construc t i o n infor med by the theory of huma n
constru c t i v i s m , gives example s of these grouping s from th e data, and ends by referri n g
161
back to Big Ideas to demons t r a t e how portr aits presented in Chapters 7 and 8 were
select e d .
6.2 Human Constructivism and Conceptual Change
I n Chapter 2 I describe d how construc t i v i s m is a powerful theory which underpins muc h
curre nt think i n g about learn i n g in museu ms . From a cognit i v e perspe c t i v e , I identi fi e d one
variation of constructivism, Human Const r u c t i v i s m (HC), wh ich attempts to explain how
people acquir e scient i f i c concep t s by a comb ina t i o n of gradual accreti o n of knowle d g e as
well as signif i c a n t knowle d g e restruc t u r i n g (Mintze s & Wandersee, 1998; Novak, 1988).
Using the HC notions of subsumption, supero rdinate learning, progr essive differentiation
and integrative reconciliation which were de scribe d in Chapter 2, as well as Anderson?s
conceptions of knowledge ?transfo r ma t i o n ? (Ander s o n 1999, Anders o n et al. 2003) I
analys e d my data to identi f y possi b l e HC cat egor i e s which could explai n how the student s
in my study were learnin g concep t s associ a t e d with astronomy at the study sites. However,
as part of this analysis , I wa s mindfu l of Novak? s learni n g pr incipl e 8 which refers to the
idea that ?thinkin g , feeling a nd acting are integrated? (Nov ak, 1988 p. 93), as well as
subseque n t research on the role of the affective and conative in conce p t ua l chang e during
informa l learni n g (Alsop & Watts, 1997). Using these human constr u c t i v i s t and concep t u a l
chang e studi e s , I devise d a codi ng syste m accou n t i n g for cogni t i ve , affec t i v e and conat i ve
proces s e s which is shown in Table 6.1.
162
Table 6.1 Knowledge Construction categories defined in my study
Code Name and description Domain of
?learning?
Code Antecedents from the literature
Addition ? a concept which is new knowledge to a
learne r , incre me n t a l l y added .
Cognit i v e Additi o n (Ander s o n 1999, Anders o n et al . 2003)
Subsu mp t i o n (Ausu b e l et al . 1978, Mintzes et al . 1997, Pearsa l l et al .
1997)
Emerg e n c e ? a conce p t which emerg e s from a learn e r ? s
me mory as a result of a subsequ e n t experi e n c e .
Cognit i v e Emerge n c e (Ander s o n 1999, Anders o n et al . 2003)
Differen t i a t i o n ? a process of modifi c a t i o n of concept
meani n g s .
Cognit i v e Progre s si v e Diffe r e n t i a t i o n (Ausub e l et al. 1978, Mintzes at al. 1997,
Pearsa l l et al. 1997, Anderson 1999, Anderson et al . 2003)
Discr i mi n a t i o n ? dema r c a t i o n of simila r i t i e s and
differ e n c e s among closel y relate d concep t s
Cognit i v e Mergin g (Ander s o n 1999, Anders o n et al . 2003)
Integrative Reconciliation (Ausubel et al . 1978, Mintzes et al. 1997,
Pearsa l l et al. 1997)
Recont e x t u a l i s a t i o n ? the underst a n d i n g of a concept
modifie d by a changed contex t , but ?with no signi fi c a n t
clarif i c a t i o n of meanin g ? (Ander s o n et al. 2003)
Cognit i v e Recont e x t u a l i s a t i o n (Ander s o n 1999, Anders o n et al . 2003)
Supero r d i n a t e Learni n g ? a new concept learnt which
links to other concept s already part of a learner? s
cognit i v e struct u r e
Cogni t i v e Super o r d i n at e Learni n g (Ausu b e l et al . 1978, Mintzes et al . 1997,
Pears a l l et al. 1997)
Enjoyab l e ? the extent to wh ich the learn i n g expe r i e nc e is
enjoya b l e
Affec t i v e Palat a b l e (Also p and Wa tts 1997)
Germa n e ? the extent to which the learn i n g expe r i e n c e is
persona l l y relevan t
Affec t i v e Germa n e (Also p and Wa tts 1997)
Salie nt ? the exten t to which the learn i n g experi enc e is
promin e n t or import a n t in the learne r ? s enviro n m e n t
Affecti v e Salien t (Alsop and Watts 1997)
Wonder ? the extent to which the learner is in awe or
amaz e me n t
Affec t i v e Not descr i bed
Conat i v e - the extent to whic h the learni n g expe ri e n c e is
put into action, is controll e d or trusted by the learner.
Conativ e Action , Contro l , Trust (Alsop and Watts 1997)
163
In their study of infor ma l learni n g about ra diati o n and radioac t i v i t y , Alsop and Watts
(1997) propos e d a new model for concept u a l change which involved 4 ?lenses? through
which the learn i n g could be obser ve d : the cogni t i ve , affec t i v e , conat i ve and self- es t e e m.
As I explai ne d in Chapte r 2, I have replac e d Alsop and Watts? cognit i v e categor i e s (which
were taken from the Strike and Posner mo del of concep t u a l change ) with catego r i e s
derived from human constructivism. I have retaine d Alsop and Watts? affect i v e and
conative lenses, but my data collection methods did not lend themse l v e s to meta-a w a r e n e s s
to enabl e me to use the self- e s t e e m lens. Initi a l explan a t i o n s of the le nses were discuss e d in
section 2.8.3 and I now describ e each of the cat egor i e s listed in Tabl e 6.1, with examples
of data from my study corres p o n di ng to each co de. Throug ho u t the rema in d e r of this thesis
I shall refe r to this frame w o r k as the Human Const r u ct i vi s t model .
6.3 Cognitive Domain
6.3.1 Addition
Like Anderson (1999) and Anderson et al. (2003), I found that student s acquir e d concep t s
which were apparen t l y new to them over th e course of my study. By comparing the pre-
v i s i t PMMs and inter vi ew s with the post- v i s i t data, student s appeare d to have taken up new
knowle d g e after the visit, at least some of which was direct l y as a result of the visit itself .
Huma n constr u c t i v i s m has used the term subsu mp t i o n for this proce ss , which has its
antec e de n t s in Ausub e l ? s meani n gfu l learni n g (Ausu b e l et al ., 1978). I explained the
process of subsumpt i o n in 2.8.2.1, and would pr efer to use Anderson? s simpl e r term of
addition, as it captu r e s the essen c e of what appear s to be occurr i ng in the studen t ? s
cognit i v e struct u r e : studen t s are assimil a t i n g or adding new conce p t s to their exist i n g
knowl e d g e witho u t any major re structuring process. Additio n was by far the most common
for m of learnin g observ e d in my study, tw o example s of which are as follows .
Brenda? s PMM shows severa l change s from the pre-visit to post-visit, including
what I coded as 11 exa mpl e s of additi o n . A small portio n of her post-v i s i t PMM is shown
in Figure 6.1, with the additio n s highlig h t e d .
164
Figure 6.1 Part of Brenda?s post-visit Personal Meaning Map
A d d i t i o n 1: Brenda has added a fact about distance ? that the Earth is 3 light seconds from
the Moon.
Addit i o n 2: Brenda has added the fact th at there are about 100,000 million stars in the
Milky Way.
Additi o n 3: Jupite r has more than enough gravity [in it].
Addit i o n 4: Origi n al l y in her pre-vi s i t PMM she wrote ?Ther e is no air or gravi t y in
space? . In her post visit PMM she change d this to ?a littl e of? gravi t y in space . All four of
these addi ti ons demon s t r a t e new facts that Brenda has learnt during the visit.
The other examp l e is from Sipho ? s inter v i e w . In his pre-vi s i t interv ie w, Sipho?s view of
stars was relati v e l y na?ve , thus:
Sipho: They are also someth i n g like fire in the night ? That makes a
littl e bit ? Shines so that it must, the Earth must not be total ly
dark?? T h e y are made fr om the sun. They are little pieces that
are co ming from the sun.
(swo 0 5 p r e i n t 126)
Howeve r , in his post-v i sit interv i e w , Sipho had additi o na l knowle d g e about stars:
165
Sipho: Stars are so me are things that, are object s that are made with
gases and other things , with hot gases which also are very hot also
like fire, also the same as the sun.
(swo 0 5 p o s i n t 075)
The fact that he now could describ e stars as being made of hot gases was an indication that
he had acqui r e d some addit i o na l knowl e d g e about stars . In the first quota t i o n he refer r e d to
stars as piece s comi n g from the Sun, in the second quotation he described them as being
the same as the Sun.
6.3.2 Emergence
T h i s categor y of knowled g e constru c t i o n wa s identi f i e d by David Anders o n in his study
and was not describe d by previous research e r s using HC (Anderso n et al. 2003). When
studen t s are tested or questi o n e d prior to a visi t to a scien ce centre , ther e is likel y to be
conside r a b l e knowled g e in their mind about a phenomen o n that they are not aware of, and
they do not refer to. During the visit, their e xperiences remi nd them of pr eviously-learned
knowl e d g e , and after the visit th ey are able to refer to this knowle d g e when questi o n e d .
The key differ e n c e betwee n emerge n c e and add ition is that students retrieve emergent
knowle d g e from their me mory , wherea s add ition refers to knowle dge not previously
known or reme mber e d . This category of ?emerg en c e ? correspo n d s to other HC processe s ,
in that knowledge is retrieved from the student? s me mory and is structu r e d toge ther with
the new-expe r i e n c e knowledg e . This is likely to resul t in more subst a n t i a l lear n i n g , as the
previously-learned knowledge is affir med by the new experi e nc e s . Martin Storksdieck
suggest s that this in fact is the commonest way in which peopl e learn in museu ms , he
suggest s that visitor s learn ?by revisit i ng previously known infor ma tion, by bringing
previou s but current l y embedde d know l e d g e to the forefr ont of thei r atte nt i o n , ther e by
briefl y ?activ a t i n g ? this knowle d ge that was hidden in their long-t e r m me mory ?
(Storksdieck, 2004 p. 10). Howeve r , althou g h this may apply to adults who have a greater
amoun t of knowl e d g e store d in their long-t e r m me mory , this is less likely with children,
and both Anderson?s and my study suggest that addition is the comm onest way in which
children learn.
Exampl e s of emerge n c e were found in a nu mber of studen t s in my study, the most
promin e n t being John, who on severa l occas i on s referred to being reminded of things he
had learnt about before:
166
Inter v i e w e r : you said the trip remin d e d you of those thing s . Tell me a littl e bit
abou t that .
John: Ja they remin d e d me of so me of the things that I was thinki ng
about like I rememb e r e d the red giant was huge in size, it has way
mor e mass th an our size and as the one lady said, she said that our
sun couldn ? t have a supern o v a becaus e it? s too small co mp ar e d to
those other stars and then the the white dwarf, it? s small in size
and it spins faste r . Quasar , I just reme mb e r when I used to
reme m b e r I reme m b e r it becau s e I looke d it up in the dicti o n a ry
so I could find out becau s e I was readi n g about it and I still didn? t
get it and it said huge sourc e of energ y , light s , heat and that? s sort
of round red giant s star .
(vho 16 p r e p m m 03)
In my study I have catego r i s e d knowle d g e as having emerge d only when studen t s
speci f i c a l l y state that the visit ?remi n d e d ? th em of someth i n g they previo u s l y knew. The
distin c t i o n betwee n ad diti o n and emerge n c e was not always clear - c ut , and this issu e is
discuss e d further in section 6.7.
6.3.3 Differentiation
Ausubel?s original description of the proc ess of progressive di fferentiation was ?The
proces s of subsump t i o n , occurr i n g one or more times, leads to progressive differentiation
of the subsu mi n g conce p t or propo s i t i o n? (Ausu b e l et al ., 1978 p. 124 emphas i s in
origin a l ) . This sugges t s there is an overa rc h i n g concept in the learner ? s mind which
become s modif i e d or chang e d as a result of the addition of new (subsumed) conce pts, and
indi c at e s that ther e is a hierar c h i ca l relat i onship between progressive differentiation and
subsump t i o n . More simp ly, Anders o n refers to progress i v e differen t i a t i o n as a clarification
of concep t meanin g s (Ander s o n et al . , 2003), and in his paper does not attempt to identif y
hiera r c h i e s betwe e n conce p t s . In line with more tradi t i o n a l HC think i n g I prefer to use the
term diffe r e n t i a t i o n (with o u t the adjec t i v e progressive ) to refer to modific a t i o n of an
overar c h i n g conce p t , for exampl e Sipho ? s kn owled g e of the Sun. Before his visit to
HartRAO Sipho stated that the Sun is the bi ggest star, and didn?t know what we can use
the Sun for. Howev e r , after the visit his knowledge appears to have been modified
substant i a l l y as shown:
Sipho : `The sun. The sun it is a star and it is born and also dies then
after 500 billio n years the sun will die and explo d e to be hundr e d
times bigger than it is then it will have to swallo w two planet s
which are Mercu r y and Venus .
Inter v i e w e r : Any th i n g else about the sun you can tell me?
167
Sipho : I can say the sun is not the bigge s t star in our solar syste m, but
there are other bigge r sun, but the sun gives us more heat. The sun
looks more bigger becaus e it is the neares t star so the other stars
look very , they are so far so they look you thin k that they are
small , but they are not. Some of the m ar e even more bigge r than
the sun.
(swo 0 5 p o s i n t 031 & 047-05 1 )
In this sequenc e Sipho discus s e s the idea of the Sun?s life histor y as well as the fact that it
is not the biggest star, but the closest (altho u g h he makes the error of referri n g to our Solar
Syste m) . Both of these ideas were covere d dur i ng the visit to HartR A O and it is very likel y
that he differentiated his knowledge of the Sun di rec t l y as a result of th e visit. His error in
referr i n g to the Sun not being the bigge s t star in our Solar Syste m was fairl y commo n in
the study, with student s confus i n g the concept of Solar System with galaxy.
I consid e r that the cruci a l diffe re n c e betwee n the proce s s e s of addit i o n and
diffe r e n t i at i o n is the exten t to which new facts are integrated into a coherent whole (in the
case of diffe r e n t i at i o n) or remai n as isolat ed fact s (in the case of addit i o n) . In
differe n t i a t i n g their knowle d g e stud ents are able to show a greater degree of understanding
of a concept.
6.3.4 Discrimination
H u ma n const r u c t i v i s t s refer to this proce ss as integra t i v e rec onciliation, but I here
intr o d uc e the term discrimination as I cons i d er it bett er capt ure s the essenc e of the proce s s .
In the case of discrimi n a t i o n , students begin to out line simila r i t i e s and differe n c e s among
associ a t e d concep t s . The example given by Pear sal l and associa t e s in fact comes fro m
astrono my : they suggest that integra t i v e reconc iliation occurs when ?i ndividual learn about
diffe r e n c e s and simil a r i t i e s in the atmos p h e r e s or Earth, Venus and Mars for example, their
knowle d g e struct u r e s become more interc o n n e c t e d , integr a t e d and cohesi v e ? (Pears a l l et
al . , 1997 p. 196). Anderson identifi e s merging as what he calls a simil a r proce s s to
integra t i v e reconci l i a t i o n in hi s study , where 2 or more separ a t e concepti o n s are mer ged to
provid e an explan a t i o n of a newly encoun t e r e d phenome n o n . I did not encoun t e r exampl e s
of mergin g in my study, and I question whether his process of mergi n g is in fact very
simila r to integr a t i v e reconc i l i a t i o n . The proces s of merging conceptions is quite different
from iden t i fy i n g simi l a r i t i e s and diffe r e nces between associated conceptions.
A common example of discrimi n a t i o n in my study was when st udents began to
identi f y simila r i t i e s and differ e n c e s betwee n the plane t s of the solar syste m. For examp l e
168
Fatima and Judy referre d to the planet name s a nd a few facts about the planet s in their pre-
v i s i t PMM. Howev e r , in their post- v i s i t P MM they both distin g u i s h e d betwee n the inner
rocky planet s and the outer gaseou s planet s , as well as other simil a r i t i e s and differ e n c e s
betwe e n them. Anoth e r examp l e was when student s could discri m i n a t e betwee n the
diffe r e n t sorts of stars accor d i n g to their size, densi t y and other chara c t e r i st i c s . Accor d i n g
to HC theory , discri mi n a t i o n promot e s linka ges between learners? knowled g e struct u r e s
which enables more substan t i a l knowle d g e constr u c t i o n .
6.3.5 Recontextualisation
A n d e r s o n identi f i e d the proces s of recont e x t u a l i s a t i o n in his study where a studen t
modifi e d a concep t as the result of the visit, bu t did not signific a n t l y cl ari fy or add to his or
her meani n g of the conce p t ? the conce pt wa s merel y descr i be d in terms of the new
contex t . It is distin g u i s h e d from diffe r e n t i a t i o n by the fact that mean ing (even if erroneous)
is not enhanced. Like the ca tegory of emergence, this c ode was developed by Anderson
and has no equivale n t in previou s HC researc h .
I found relati v e l y few exampl e s of recont e x t u a l i s a t i o n in my study. One exampl e is
Kitso who in her pre-vi si t inter vi e w expla i ne d how the Sun ?rotates around the Earth?. She
repeat e d this idea in her post- v i s i t inter v i e w , and, using the model Earth and Sun:
Kitso : It?s the bigges t star. It prov i d e s light to the Earth and it rotat e s
[said slowl y ] aroun d the Earth [said as th oug h memor i s e d , in a
sing- s o n g way ]. .
Interv i e w e r : Okay . Umm. So why does the sun move across the sky every
day? What? s goin g on ther e ?
Kitso: Becaus e the sun, it rises. What? The sun rises and it sets. So, it
move s. Bec a u s e ? Isn? t it ?? It? That? s how life is, because
there ? s the time. So, it?s in th e morni n g the sun rises and then.
Interv i e w e r : Okay . Show me what? s goi n g on here [sho w i n g Kits o the mode l ].
If we? re in Africa there, wh at? s going on if that is the sun?
What? s happ en i n g ? The risin g and sett i n g .
Kitso : That is Afric a , right , so, ? Umm, let?s see?
Interv i e w e r Show me ho w the sun rises and sets.
Kitso : No wait, the sun rises from the? The sun sets fro m? . The sun
co mes this side, I know (//). So it?s when it sets, so then ?Oh,
yes, then this side it?s night time then the ? so, as the sun is
movin g from Afric a , we exper i e n c e ? Like night time is co min g
now, fouri s h , fivis h , and then it comes like this, then this part ?
Inter v i e w e r : The sun goes aroun d the other side?
Kitso: Yes.
[Stud e n t appea r s to demon s t r a t e that the sun moved round the Earth ].
169
(scf1 7 p o s i n t 069- 08 7 )
In this case, she has not clarifie d her knowled g e about the cause of day and night,
and the HartRAO context appears to have produced uncertai n t y in her thinking .
6.3.6 Superordinate Learning
According to most reports of HC research, s uperor d i n a t e learning is an importan t concept
of the learni n g proce s s in indi vidu a l s . It is therefor e striki ng to note that Anderson and
associ a t e s in their paper on theore t i c a l persp e c t i v e s of learnin g ignor e it as a categor y of
learning transfor ma tion. Further, they si mplify the concept map of HC (Figure 2.2)
presente d by Mintzes and Wanderse e (19 98), and misrepr e s e n t the positio n of
superor d i n a t e learni n g as resulti n g from s ubsumpt i o n . They also draw ambiguou s linking
lines between progres s i v e differe n t i a t i o n and integ r a t i v e recon c i l i a tion and superordinate
learni n g . This makes it unclear whethe r pr ogressive differentiation (and integrative
reconc i l i a t i o n ) result s in supero r d i n a t e le arnin g or vice versa. Ausubel provide s the
simpl e s t defin i t i o n of super o r d i n a t e learning : ?An inclusiv e ne w proposit i o n (or concept) is
learned under which several establ i s h e d ideas are subsume d ? (Ausub e l et al ., 1978 p. 59).
The princi p al featu re of this categ o r y is that a new concep t is lear ned which includes other
concepts, some of which may already be known. In HC terms this involves strong
restr uc t ur i ng in the brai n in order to make sense of the new infor m ation learnt. Mintzes et
al . descri b e supero r d i n a t e learni n g as follows : ?A new more general and inclusive concept
is linked to more specific con cepts already a part of the l earner's cognitive structure; for
example when students learn that visi ble light and radio wave s represent different
freque n c i e s of electr o ma g n e t i c energy ? (Mintz e s et al . , 1997 p.420). In some ways
super o r di n a t e learni n g corre s p o n d s to Piage t ? s equil i br a t i o n , where a new balan c e is struc k
betwe e n exist i n g knowl e d g e and new evide n c e recei ve d from exper i e n c e (Rosc h e l l e ,
1995).
I found few example s of superor d i n a t e learni ng in my study. I think this is because
I was dealing with relati v e l y famili a r concep t s such as the Sun, stars , space and plane t s ,
which the study participants already had so me knowledge about, from previous school
learni n g . The possib i l i t y of the m learni n g a co mpletely new concept is therefore relatively
unlik el y ; they are more likel y to diffe r e n t i a t e or discri mi n a t e existing concepts by a
proces s of additi o n or emerge n c e . Howev e r , I show two contr a st i n g examp l e s . The first
involves Kitso, who appears to have gained a completely di fferent understanding of the
170
planet s . She tries to descri b e her previo u s understa n d i n g , and goes on to explain that her
new understanding of what a planet consist s of was a radical departur e from her previous
knowledge:
Kitso : What actua l l y chang e d is ?.the plane t s . Becaus e I though t
plane t s ?. No, ?I thoug h t they were just a place. I didn? t think
of it as in ?. I don?t know which plan e t it is, but it?s got soil but
the soil is not so good to plan t in and every th i n g but I never
thou gh t that plane t s woul d have such thing s , y?kn o w ? I just
thought ? It was one of those places wh ere there was a whole lot
of gravity and you see nothing , so Yeah, I?ve learnt like may b e
the soil and mo st probab l y there ? s more to it and some of the
planet s are very colour f u l and bright . Quite attrac t i v e .
(scf 1 7 p o s i n t 143)
The second examp l e is of a stude nt learning how to tell time us ing a sundial. In a series of
intervi e w probes, Batsile describ e s how he expe ri e n c e d the demons t r a t i o n of the sundia l at
HartRAO:
Batsi l e : I told them every t h in g which they heard and how that we can
mea sure ti me .
Inter v i e w e r : Tell me about that.
Batsi l e : It?s that there are, the proble m is I forgot the names
Inter v i e w e r : Don? t worry about the name, just descr i b e it, just tell me.
Batsi l e : It shows there are hours , month s , ja there are hours , day s and
nights and time, you see we have to put it, the time only start at
5 ja at 5 and I don? t know when it ends and then you have to put it
on the mont h or in the midd l e of the mont h .
Inte r v i e w e r : What do you put on the mont h ?
Batsi l e : There? s a steel which you have to put on the month and it will
show what time is it.
Inte r v i e w e r : It?s a stick you put on the mont h ?
Batsile: Ja.
Intervi e w e r : Okay and then how does it show the time?
Batsile: By the shadow.
Inter v i e w e r : Shado w okay, shado w of the stick . So it will work when the sun
is shini n g .
Batsil e : Ja only when the sun is shin i n g . The only prob l e m whic h I don? t
get it?s winte r. I didn? t reall y ask the quest i o n but I don?t get it at
winter there ? s no sun becaus e how do you get time?
(swo 5 3 p o s i n t 250- 27 4 )
This student had no idea previou s l y that the S un can be used to tell time, and explai n s in
some detail how this is done. He previously knew a bout the Sun as a star, and giving light
and heat to the Earth . He also had some knowle d g e about the relati v e move me n t of the
Earth and Sun, though he showed some confusi o n regar d i n g this in his post-v i s i t interv i e w .
171
Howeve r , he used these exist i n g conce p t s to link to a new concept of the Sun as a clock,
provid i n g an exampl e of superor d i n a t e learni n g .
6.4 Affective Domain
F o r severa l years resear c h e r s have noted the impor t a n ce of the affec t i v e do ma i n in lear n i n g
both in the for mal schooli ng enviro n me n t (e.g. Alsop & Watts, 2003; Hargreaves, 1996)
and in museu ms (Dier k i n g , 2005; Rame y - G a s s e r t et al . , 1994) . In my study I identi f i e d 4
catego r i e s in which studen t s expres s e d differ e nt attitudes and degrees of interest and
exciteme n t towards the topic of astronomy and their visit to one of the study sites. When
examin i n g indivi d u a l studen t s in the portr ai t s in Chapt e rs 7 and 8 I have combi n e d the
differ e n t affec t i ve catego r i e s into one for the sake of clarit y .
6.4.1 Enjoyable
I n this categor y I identif i e d anythin g the stud ent enjoye d or dislike d about the visit or
topic s they refer r e d to in their intervi e w . Alsop and Watts ident i f i e d a simila r categ o r y
which they refer r e d to as palatable , in which they determined ?how agreeable how savory
the materi a l is? (1997 p. 639). Howev e r , the noti on of enjoyment was a clear feature of the
school visits in my study, as well as the enjoym e n t of a subjec t or t opic at school. Two of
my interview questions were ?W ha t things did you most enjoy/ like most about the visit??
and ?What did you dislik e about th e visit? ? so I almost always heard about spec ific aspects
that studen t s liked or dislik e d . Howeve r , so me studen t s also referr e d to enjoyme n t when
asked about anything they had t hought about after the trip or anyone they had told about
the trip. For examp l e Fatima refe r r e d direct l y to enjoy me n t :
Inter v i e w e r : Okay . Umm. Other than today ? have you thoug h t about the
trip since?
Fati ma: Yes, I did.
Inte r v i e w e r : What do you thin k?
Fati ma: I though t it was very interes t i n g becau s e I learnt mor e things and
it? s just very nice going there. I enjoy ed it.
(scf 1 5 p o s i n t 145)
6.4.2 Germane
T h i s categ o r y was adapte d from the same ele m e nt as Alsop and Watts (1997): they referre d
to germa n e as being the extent to which some t h i n g is persona l l y relev an t . I used the code
when studen t s were able to say why they were looking forwar d to going on the trip, why
they might have an inter e s t in astro n o my as we ll as whethe r they t hought their ideas about
172
space had changed and how much they had tho ug h t about the visit af ter return. Any of
these though t s sugges t e d an as pect of astronomy or the vis it which they found to be of
parti c u l ar inter e st to thems e l v e s . For examp l e after the visit Carol i n e descr i b e d what she
had told her mother and brothe r . From this I infer that the act iv i t i e s she descr i be d had some
impor t a n c e for her:
Inter v i e w e r : No. Okay. When you cam e back have you told anyb o dy abou t
the visit since?
Carol i n e : Yes. I?ve told my broth e r , I told my mom.
Inter v i e w e r : What did you just tell me one or two thing s you actu a l ly told
them spec i f i c thin g s you told them abou t .
Carol i n e : I told them we went to go see this satel l i t e and moved and my
frien d and I ? we walke d away . I told them littl e jokes every
now and again and I told them about the rocke t and the thing s we
did and all that.
(vho 11 p o s i n t 227- 23 3 )
6.4.3 Salient
A l t h o u g h simil a r to the categ o r y of germa n e , this code was used by Alsop and Watts to
refer to ?how promi n e n t , or arres t i n g [a topic ] is withi n the learn i n g environme n t ? (1997 p.
639). I used it where studen t s could refer to an issue in the media or their envir o n me n t
which they ident i fi e d as notic ea b l e or impor t a n t . For exampl e in his pre-vi s i t PMM Sipho
wrote that ?Last year the scie nce people discover the other pl ane t which was the small e st
planet in the univer s e and that means we ha ve 10 planets in our univers e ? (swo05p r e 20) .
Here, the stude n t is refer r i n g to a recen t devel o p me n t in astro n o my that he has heard about ,
althou g h he is confus i n g the term univer s e with solar system.
6.4.4 Wonder
A fourth catego r y within the affecti v e domain that I identifi e d was that of wonder, where
studen t s showed amazeme n t or awe at someth i n g they had learne d about. This categor y is
not refer r e d to by Alsop and Watts , and while it may be simi l a r to the categ o r y of germa n e ,
wonder shows a greater degree of incredul i t y or astonish me n t . For exampl e Thapis o ? s
respon s e is typica l of ma ny studen t s :
Inter v i e w e r : No. Okay. Is there any th in g you saw at Harte b e e s t h o e k that
reall y surpr i sed you or chang e d your idea about space or plane t s ?
Thapis o : It? s like when like there were differ e n t kind of scales on the floor.
When you like you can measure yoursel f , the weight of yoursel f
in differ e n t planet s and ja it was amazin g becaus e I didn? t know
that we can even measu r e ourse l v e s even thoug h we?re here on
Earth . (swo 5 9 p o s i n t 170)
173
The four catego r i e s descri b e d here consti t u t e the affect i v e lens th rough which I viewed
student utterances abou t their exper i e n ce s relat e d to thei r visit . The impor t a n c e of the
affect i v e domain for learni n g cannot be undere s t i ma t e d , and althou g h empiri c a l studie s
into the role of affect ar e relatively few (Alsop and Wa tts 2003), research in science
educa t i o n needs to move away from the noti o n that cogni t i v e , affec t i v e and psych o mo t o r
functions are all separate and able to be co mpa r t me n t a l i s e d . Advoc a t e s of affec t i v e study
hold a view that ?affe c t surro u n d s cogni t i o n ? , and needs to be inves t i g a t e d as part of
scien c e educa t i o n in the clas sr o o m , especi a l l y ?at a time wh en student s in the West are
moving away from scienc e ? (Also p and Watts 2003 p 1046). Disench a n t me n t with science
appear s to be a worldwi d e phenome n o n (Sj?be r g , 2000) so the need for studies of affect is
just as true for under-d e v e l o p e d countr i e s as fo r develo p e d ones. Studie s of affect in the
informa l scien c e educa t i o n envir o nme n t are even rarer than those in the classr o o m.
Dierk i n g (2005 ) provi de s some recen t evide n c e for the importa n c e of affect in museum
environments, and the portraits of students desc rib e d in Chapter s 7 an d 8 of this thesi s
show how important it was in the vis its to the planet ar i u m and HartRA O .
The genera l catego r y of affect relate s to anothe r typolo g y I referr e d to in Chapte r 2,
that of scient i fi c litera c y. Shen (1975 ) refe rr e d to a level of scient i fi c litera c y that enable s
the person to appreciate (and po ssi bl y criti ci s e ) the achie veme n t s of scien c e . Eleme n t s of
the affective dimension of knowledge constructi on enable learne r s to appreci a t e aspects of
astron o my and theref o r e ?impro v e ? their level of scientif i c literac y, which according to
Lucas (1983) and Rennie (2001) mus e ums are uniquel y positio n e d to do.
6.5 Conative Domain
C o n a t i o n involv e s the desire to perfor m an ac tion , and togeth e r with cognit i o n and affect
for ms the three compone n t s of mind (Hil gar d , 1980; Huitt, 1999). It relates to the
intenti o n a l aspect of behavio u r and the free dom to make choices about action (Mischel,
1996). The conativ e doma in is similar to Stri ke and Posner?s noti on of ?fruitfulness?
within their cognit i v e concep tual change model (1985), but emphasises the idea of action
to a greate r exten t . In thei r study of villa g e r s? under st a nd i n g of radi oac t i v i t y , Alsop
ident i f i e d three facto r s which shape d how the parti ci p a n t s relat e d to the topic : actio n ,
contro l and trust (Alsop , 2000; Alsop & Watts, 1997). I have used simila r catego r i e s to
identif y how the student s in my study could potentia l l y use their knowledg e of astronomy
for a purpose , but have combine d the three fact o r s toge t h er as my da ta did not support a
174
separate category of ? control they perceive d infor mat i on allowed them? (Alsop, 2000 p.
204) or learne r s ? trust in their own understa n d i n g s . In my study I used the category when it
was clear that student s actuall y carried out an action related to the topic of astronomy, for
examp l e some stude n t s used their visit exper i e nc e to follo w up direc t l y on somet h i n g they
had been given or told about, such as Tlo tlo who made her own ho me- ma d e wate r rock e t :
Tlotlo : Ja, I did. I tried the water rocke t , becau s e it ... ja ...
Inter v i e w e r : You did.
Tlotl o : Ja. I liked it so I did it at home.
Inte r v i e w e r : Did you mana g e to. Did it work ?
Tlotl o : Ja, it worke d .
Inter v i e w e r : How did you get the parts , the right parts to put it toget h e r ?
Tlot l o : No, you know what I did I took a 2 litre bott l e and a pump, I did
that and it just. ?.. It?s like I put water then I just made the pump
there and then ...it went high.
Inte r v i e w e r : Did you show any bo dy else ?
Tlotlo : Ja I showed my friend s .
(tsw 0 2 p o s i n t 025- 05 7 )
Simil a r l y , some stude n t s ident i f i e d that human s have the potent i a l for action with respec t
to current discoveries that are being made. Fo r examp l e Nnani k i refer r e d to the fact that
?We can do resear c h to see if we can live in one of the pl anets e.g. Mars? (tsw15pos 9).
Simil a r l y , I have adapt e d the idea of trust to includ e the extent to which studen t believ e in
both scienti f i c and other knowled g e systems su ch as religion and astrology. How students
grappl e with non-sc i e nt i f i c belief s can affect the extent to which they will accept the
scienti f i c knowle d g e which is the focus of the presenta t i o n s at both study sites. For
exampl e in some studen t s the visit brough t out a confl i c t in their belie fs, such as Brenda:
[Int e r v i e w e r : And I can? t reme mb e r if you told me, are you reli g io u s? Do you
go to churc h and stuf f ? ]
Brend a : Ja I do go to churc h .
Inter v i e w e r : What do you think God has to do with the plane t s and space and
sun?
Brend a : Since I went to the trip it? s very comp lica t e d because from what
I?ve learn t in HSS the world start e d as a small , tiny littl e thing
and the water , that was writt e n by I don?t know who somet h i n g
Darwin , but in the Bible it say s it? s Adam and Eve and then
co mes the plane t and all. I think it?s a lot comp l i c a t i n g .
Interv i e w e r : Hmmm. So you? re not really sure.
Brend a : Ja I?m not sure. I don?t know which one to belie v e , the Bible or
evol u t i on or some t h i n g .
(swo 7 0 p o s i n t 245- 24 9 )
175
In order for students to think more deeply about the relationship be tween their religious
belie fs and scient i fi c aspec t s of the Solar Syst em and universe, I cons i de r that the scien c e
centr e s thems e l v e s shoul d assis t this proce s s . Just as constr u c t i v i s t s use ?discr e p a nt event s ?
and ?crit i c al mo men t s ? in scienc e lesso n s to force stude n t s to confr o n t their own
miscon c e p t i o n s (Chinn & Brewer , 1993; Koballa, n.d.), so sc ience centres can identify
areas of astron o my and cosmol o g y which support or conflic t w ith religiou s beliefs. This
might enable studen t s to begin thinki n g about deeper issues of their own upbri n g i n g and
cultur e in relat i o n to the scien ce that has been prese n t e d .
6.6 Coding for Human Constructivist categories
U s i n g the cogni t i ve , affec t i ve and conat i ve doma i n s I devel o p e d categ o r i e s of stude n t
knowle d g e based on the human co nst r u c t i v i s t fra me w o r k descr i bed in this chapter and
shown in Table 6.1. I coded each student? s PMM and intervie w s using the categor i e s as a
typolo g y of learni n g , highli g h t i n g every phrase or utteran c e which could be classif i e d as an
example of knowled g e constr u c t i o n . I provide an example of such coding from the
ATLAS. t i progra m in Append i x E. To ensure rigour in my analysi s I asked anothe r
resear c h e r to re-code a selecti o n of my data based on the categor i e s I had defined in Table
6.1. She initia l l y found this a diffic u l t proces s mainly becaus e she was not fa mili a r with the
terms and conce p t s invol v e d in human c onstr u c t i v i s m. Althou g h at the start our
congru e n c e in coding was only 72%, discus s i o n of the categori e s and theory of HC
enabl e d compl e t e agree me n t betwe e n us by the end of the proce ss. I provide a brief
refl e c t i o n on the proce s s of inter - r a t e r reliab i l i t y in section 7.3.
6.7 Problems encountered with the coding process
Whereas the coding system I developed for Bi g Ideas was an inductiv e process derived
from the data, the procedu r e I followe d relatin g students? learning to human constr u c t i v i s m
was deducti v e , fitting observe d data to a pre-c o nc e i ve d theor y . On the basis of
observ a t i o n s and field notes made at my st udy sites I consid e r e d there was a close fit
between huma n constru c t i v i s m and the types of processes in learning that I observed
durin g the visits . Inevi t a b l y , there were times when data observ e d appear e d not to fit the
categ or i e s descr i be d in HC, and this resul t e d in my adapt a t i o n of exist i n g categ or i es and
the development of new ones. Further, there were times during the an alys i s when it was
diffi c u l t to clas si fy stude n t s ? utter a nc e s into catego r i e s . For exampl e , in some cases, it is
possib l e that what I have catego r i s e d as addi tion may be eme r gent knowledg e that students
176
were eithe r not aware of thems e l v e s , or did not voice as being somet h i n g they knew
before. Much of the time, knowledge categorised as addition is cl early new knowledge, for
examp l e all four of Brend a ? s addit i o n exa mp l e s in Figure 6.1 are facts that were referr e d to
at HartRAO. There is a very st rong likelihood that she learnt th ese facts directly as a result
of her visit . Howev e r , there are cases where it is more diffi c u l t to tell, for examp l e when I
did not specifi c a l l y pr obe students on their sources of information. Although I often asked
whethe r studen t s knew about a partic u l a r piece of knowle d g e prior to their visit, I did not
alway s do so. In these cases , it is possi b l e that infor ma t i o n coded as addit i o n may in fact
have been emerg e n t . Simil a r l y , the inter v i e w quest i o n i n g was some t i me s not suffi c i e n t l y
probi n g , espec i a l l y with retic e n t studen t s , to later determi n e the extent of their knowle d g e
const r u ct i o n. In order to reduc e the effec t s of these codin g diffi c u l t i e s , I discu s s e d some o f
the cases with colle a g ue s to deter mi n e wheth e r my categ o r i s a t i o n s were valid. I also
presen t e d my work-i n - p r o g r e s s to resear c h forums at my unive r s i t y and regio n a l
confer e n c e s while my analysi s was proceed i n g , to enabl e me to be as object i ve and
impar t i a l as possi b l e .
The other main diffic u l t y associ a t e d with coding was related to human
constructivism and metacogniti o n . Metaco g n i t i o n refers to the abilit y of people to
consciou s l y reflect on their learni n g . The lit erature suggests that although a form of
metacog n i t i o n has been identif i e d in childre n as young as 5 years old (Larkin, 2000) it
norma l l y devel o p s slowl y until the age of 12 years , and is infl u e n c e d by the learn i n g
enviro n me n t and the extent to which it is consciously developed (Berk, 2003). There is
evidence that South African students do not have well-dev e l o p e d metaco g n i t i v e abilit i es
(e.g. Case & Gunston e , 2002; van der Riet, Di son & Quinn, 1998) and I did not devise my
intervi e w questio n s to invest i g a t e metaco g n i t i o n . Howeve r , concept u a l change and human
const r u ct i vi sm both rely to some exten t on the abili t y of the learne r to refl e c t on their own
learni n g , and if I had probed mor e carefu l l y for metac o g n i t i o n during the inter vi e w s I
might have found addition a l evidence for how studen t s were learni n g at the study sites.
Despit e the proble ms encou n t e r e d in the codi ng proces s , the process e s of credibi l i t y
and trust w o rt h i n e s s that I descri b e d in Chapt e r 3 and discussed in th is chapt e r demo n s t r at e
that the analys i s of my data was rigoro u s e nough for me to make the claims that I put
forward in subsequent chapters. The following two Chapters, 7 and 8, consist of portraits
of seven students who show a range of lear ni ng . The chapte r s atte mpt to show not only
177
what the students learnt about aspects of astrono my , but also how they learnt, and how
their prior knowled g e and interes t s affecte d their learnin g .
178
Chapter 7
7 How individual students learnt about astronomy (1)
This chapter describes the learning s hown by four students who visited the
Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observator y. Each of these students showed
different levels of prior knowledge, and the portraits demonstrate the extent to
which this affected their learning at the science centre.
7.1 Introduction
I n order to demon s t r a t e how learn i n g occur r e d in my study , I prese n t a number of portra i t s
of studen t s , with thei r learni n g descri b e d in cogni t i ve , affec t i v e and conat i v e terms . Using
Table 7.1 I have selected portraits as char acterising each of the categories of student
learni n g in terms of Big and Signifi c a n t Ideas. Having presented and discussed how
learni n g occur s in each of these studen t s , I will demonst r a t e how student s ? prior knowled g e
and interes t s have influen c e d their learnin g . I w ill then discus s the implic a t i o n s this has on
learnin g at science centre s such as those used in this study.
7.2 The Schools
7.2.1 Balfour Forest School (BFS)
O r i g i n a l l y built and run as a school for white stude n t s only durin g the apart he i d era, in
1990 Balfour Forest was declared a ?Model C? school, whereby it had some autonomy
from the provin c i a l depart me n t of educat i o n over its affairs, and was run by a Board of
Gover n o r s . The schoo l close d as a ?Mode l C? in 1993, and reopened as a norma l public
school the followi n g year with 420 student s , n one of whom had stayed on from the old
schoo l . By 2003 there were 570 stude n t s (grade s 1 to 7), and 18 teach e r s . This is a ?Sect i o n
21? school , which means that the School G over n i n g Body was grante d permi s s i o n by the
Provin c i a l Depart me n t of Educat i o n to contro l their own finances . In 2003 the fees were
R1600 1 3 per annum. The class teach e r , Mr. Pete r Malomba had booked for the two grade 7
classes to visit Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronom y Observatory on 24 October. However, as
discuss e d in Chapter s 3 and 4, only the student s who paid for the trip were allowe d to go.
13 $US 200 at exchange ra tes prevalent in 2006
179
In class 7x, out of a total of 36 stude n t s , 16 re turn e d informe d consen t forms, and onl y 10
of these actua l l y parti ci p a t e d in the trip. Of the 39 student s in cl ass 7y, 21 signed consent
for ms, and 20 of these took part in the visit. During analys i s of the result s of my study I
tried to get the academi c result s of the stude n t s who partic i p a t e d , but due to a stolen
comput e r at the school and othe r relate d proble ms I did not ma nag e to obtai n them. It has
not theref o r e been possi b l e to relate learni n g at the science centre to student s ? overal l
acade mi c achie v e me n t .
7.2.2 Lourdes Girls School (LGS)
T h i s is a private Catholi c school situate d in the Western suburb s of Johannesburg. In 2003
there were 300 girls from grades 1 to 12, with 160 from grade 8 to 12. The school fees in
2003 were R1200 per month. The class teache r , Ms Charlene Pell had booked for her grade
8 geogra p h y class of 21 studen t s to visit the pl aneta r i u m on 14 October . 16 partici p a t e d in
the visit , all of whom compl e t e d the PMM, and I chose 8 studen t s to inter v i e w prior to and
after thei r visit . I later obtai n e d acade mi c resul t s for all stude n t s in the class , and was able
to compa r e their resul t s with thei r learni n g as a result of the visit.
7.2.3 Achievement School (AS)
T h i s private school started in 1997 as a prim ary school run on Christia n principl e s , and
has, due to pressur e from parents , extend e d into the seconda r y sector. I visited the school at
its old premises during 2003, but it moved to new and la rger premises in 2004. Although
students are required to wear uni form, it is relative l y informal , consisti n g of a blue navy T-
shi r t and denim jeans . Class sizes are relat i v ely small ; the class I visi t e d consi st e d of 16
studen t s (seven boys and nine girls) , but the classr o o m, due to the compac t nature of the
premi s e s was cramp e d for this numbe r . The class teach e r , Mrs. Irene Baldw i n , was also the
teache r of the topic on space and the solar syste m , which was comple t e d in term one 2003.
14 of the 16 in the class signed consent fo rms , and all of them went on the visit to
HartRAO on 20 October . Eight of these students were chosen for intervie w .
7.2.4 Bokamoso School (BS)
T h i s is a ?Middle School ? (grade s 7 to 9) in a townsh i p North - We s t of Pretoria. Under
apart he i d the towns h i p was devel op e d for Se Tswana - s p e a k i n g people, and most of its
inhabi t a n t s rema in so today. The school opene d in the early 1980s, and is a feeder school
to a nearby seconda r y school. The student s partic ipating in the trip to HartRAO consisted
180
of the scienc e club, and anyone who was prepar e d to pay the fee for the visit was allowe d
to go. I met with 18 grade 7 and 8 students on 7 November, all of whom completed their
PMM, and selecte d 5 for intervi e w . They visited HartRAO on 17 Nove mbe r , and I
returne d to re-int e r vi e w on 3 Decemb e r . Howeve r , as it was near the end of term, only 7
studen t s attend e d the post-v i s i t session, and I re-interviewed only 4 student s . I was unable
to obtain academi c result s for 2003 for the st udents. Several student s in the Science Club
enter e d the South e r n Skies astro n om y comp et i t i o n , and two won prizes, one of whom
(Botho) was part of my sample.
7.3 Big Ideas and Individual Learning
I n order to examin e studen t s ? individ u a l learnin g using a Human Const ru c t i vi s t frame w o r k
I used my analysi s of student s ? knowled g e of Big Ideas in astrono m y as a basis for
cate g or i si n g them as indiv i d u al s . Instea d of catego r i s i n g their collective knowledge of
concept s as shown in Chapter 5, I produce d a summary of each individual?s knowledge of
Big Ideas, the results of whic h are shown in Appendix F.
For purpos e s of improv i n g resear c h ri gour, I asked a colleagu e knowledg e a b l e
about astro no my and exper i e nc e d in teachi n g and resea r c h i ng basic astro n o my to asses s
the extent to which I had allocat e d stude nt s corre ct l y into their pre-v i si t and post-v i s i t
knowledge categories. She examined data from five students and agreed with 83% of my
categ or i s at i on . Those she initi al l y did not agree with we discussed and reached a
conse n s u s . In addit i o n , a teach e r exper i e nc e d in the teachi ng of basic astro n o my who has
also done some resea r c h in the area also a ssist e d in the valida t i o n of my allocati o n to
categ or i e s . The inter- r at e r relia bi l i t y betwe e n her and mysel f was 78% for data from six
studen t s , with the main area of disagr e e me n t being in the domin a n t artefa ct of the
parabo l i c / s a t e l l i t e dish. This turned out to be differences in interpretation of categories 2
and 3. Again, with discuss i o n we reached a cons e n s u s of nearl y 90%, and I am satis f i e d
that my own codin g is relia b l e . Some quali t a t i v e researc h e r s such as Henning (2004) are
highly scepti c a l of the notion of inter-r a t e r relia bility. Nigel King s uggests that such
independ e n t scrutiny should happen early in the coding proces s to improve the coding
templa t e and discussi o ns then take place betwee n the coders to furthe r revis e the templ a t e
(King, n.d. retrie v e d 20 July 2006). Howeve r , I consid e r that even if this approa c h is taken,
a check by an independ e n t coder late in the analysis process is a useful method of ensuring
181
a more rigoro u s study, as change s in a resear c h e r ? s mind occur s over tim e, with the result
that the initial coding templat e can be altered without the research e r noticing .
On the basis of the data in Append i x F, I then placed stude nts into categor i e s using
the combin e d exten t of their pre- and post-v i s i t knowle d g e of Big Ideas . My first attempt at
categor i s a t i o n split studen t s ? pre-visi t knowledg e into low, medium and high catego r i e s ,
and their post-visit knowledge into the degr e e to which they had decr ea s e d , rema i n e d the
same or increase d their knowledg e . All student s showed either the same knowledg e or an
increas e in knowled g e , and th e differ e n t i a t i o n betwee n categor ies was based on the number
of knowledge levels by which st udents increased. This origin al categorisation scheme is
shown in Appendix G, and was di scar d e d becau s e I conside r e d that it did not capture their
change in knowle d g e in a suffic i e n t l y fine-g r a i n e d manne r . Inste a d , I decided to calculate
the mean of the pre- and post-vi s i t knowl e d g e categor i e s for each student , and these are
shown in Appendi x F as mean pre- and mean post-sco r e s . I then plotted scatterg r a ms o f
pre-v i s i t me an score s (x axis) versus post-v i s i t mean scores (y axis) for all studen t s (Figur e
7.1).
1. 0
1. 5
2. 0
2. 5
3. 0
3. 5
1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 3. 0
Mean score pre-visit
Mea
n
sco
re
po
st
-vis
it
Figure 7.1 Scattergram of students? pre- and post-visit mean scores
F i g u r e 7.1 shows that st udents? pre-visit score correlates close l y to their post- vi s i t score
(correlation coefficient is 0.88). This suggest s that the extent of students? pre-visit
knowl e d g e deter mi n e s their post- v i s i t mean scor e, for exa mple if an individ u a l ? s pre-vi s i t
score is low, then their post- v i sit score is likely also to be low. Howev e r, the graph also
shows that all post-vis i t score s are eithe r the same as or be tter than their pr e-visit scores. I
182
am using ordina l data and some statis t i c i a n s do not recomme n d calcu l a t i n g a mean for such
data (Gorard , 2001), as the differe n c e in sc or e betwe e n each ratin g is not equal . For
example , in Table 5.3 the differe n c e betwee n kn owledge levels 1 and 2 is not the same as
between levels 2 and 3. For this reason I re calc u l a t e d the mean scores using the Rasch
technique (Boone & Rogan, 2005), which allows non-line a r data to be converte d into
linear data. Append i x H shows the same data as Figure 7.1, but recalculated using the
Rasch proced u r e (resul t i n g in a different scale). However, the points plotted are very
similar to those in Figure 7.1, an d the correlation coefficient is 0.90. On the basis of this
simil a r i t y , I regar d the means calc ul a t e d in Ap pen d i x F as credi bl e , despi t e the fact that I
have used ordin a l data to calcu l a t e them. I then used Figure 7.1 to identif y studen t s about
whom I could write word portr ai t s which desc r i b e their detai l e d lear ning. Word portraits
are used mainly in ethnographic research as a techniq u e to presen t data ?in which the
informa t i o n is integr a t e d in the format of a description of a person, but with information
about others and about the c ontext? (Henning 2004 p 112).
I devise d a set of crite r i a which I used to choose the most approp r i a t e studen t s for
the writing of portrait s for Chapters 7 and 8:
? A n approx i ma t e 20% sample 1 4 of the total student group.
? S t u d e n t s who showed no change in learning .
? S t u d e n t s who showed change in learning .
? S t u d e n t s across the full range of mean scores, from low to high.
? Both study sites should be represented.
? I f I made a choice betwee n two or more simila r studen t s on the contin u u m , I chose
the one who exempl i f i e d intere s t i n g or unusua l huma n constr u c t i v i s t learni n g .
On this basis I chose 7 studen t s (Fi gur e 7.2) identif i e d on the graph by their
pseudon y ms .
14 This is in lin e with oth er simi lar stud ies e.g . And erson (1999 ) wro te 5 portr aits out of a total of 28 stud en ts
in the class.
183
Fatima
Nonkululeko
Neo
Botho
John
HelenBrenda
1. 0
1. 5
2. 0
2. 5
3. 0
1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 3. 0
Mean Pre-visit Big Idea Score
Mea
n
Pos
t-vi
si
t
Big
Ide
a
Scor
e
Figure 7.2 Graph showing students across the ra nge of learning about whom portraits are
written.
Although Figure 7.2 is a good graphical representa tion of how students fit on the learni n g
conti n u u m, I also categ o r i s e d th e student s into a tabular scheme as a more conveni e n t way
of descri b i n g their learni n g . This scheme (T able 7.1) shows the extent to which studen t s
increas e d their knowled g e about Big Ideas. Th e pink-sh a d e d area shows that no student s
demons t r a t e d an overall decrease in their knowle d g e a bout these ideas afte r the visit. This
is signi fi c a nt in that the visit s did not impa rt substantial misconceptions to students which
made the m change whatev e r correct knowled g e about Big Ideas they might have had. The
yello w - s h a de d secti o n of the tabl e ident i fi e s the 13 students (38%) who performe d at the
same level in thei r pre- and post inter vi e ws, while the blue-shaded area shows the 21
students (62%) who exhibited an increase in their knowledge of Big Ideas. Students
ident i f i e d in red are those whose portr a i t s appea r in this chapt e r and Chapt e r 8, and are
refer r e d to as portrait students.
184
Table 7.1 Categorisation scheme for students (n=34) based on their pre- and post-
visit knowledge of Big Ideas concepts.
D 2.6-3.0 Brend a Helen , Pau l,
Judy
John , Susan ,
Anto n ia ,
Richa r d
C 2.1-2.5 Sibong ile,
Sarah ,
Bhekiw e ,
Banyana,
Julius,
Thap iso,
Nnan ik i,
Vicky, Ross
Neo , Lara,
Sipho ,
Doug las,
Phillip
B 1.6-2.0 F a t i ma , Tlo tlo ,
Kitso , Zan ele,
Mpho ,
Ntob e ko ,
Batsile, Fan e
Botho ,
Caro lin e
P
os
t Vi
si
t Me
an
S
co
re
s
A 1.0-1.5 Nonku lu le ko ,
Theresa
1.0-1.5 1.6-2.0 2.1-2.5 2.6-3.0
A B C D
Pre Visit Mean Scores
The mean pre-visit score was 1.9 (SD=0.46) while the mean post-visit score was 2.2
(SD=0. 4 5 ) . Like the scatte r g r a ms in Figure 7.1 and Figure 7.2, the table provide s evidenc e
that student s ? knowle d g e levels either rema in e d the same or increased as a result of their
visit to one of the study sites . The lowes t knowle d g e leve l I assigne d to each Big Idea (as
shown in Table 5.3) was level 1, represe n t i ng a relatively limited knowledge of the idea.
Table 7.1 shows that even if student s have this relative l y limited prior knowl e d g e of Big
Ideas (Pre- vi s i t A) it is possi b l e for them to move to the next level (Post - v i s i t B), which
eight of the ten stude n t s at this level accomp l i sh e d . The table also shows that studen t s at
the level of Pre-vis i t B (12 stude n t s , or one third of the total ) can readi l y move to Post-
l e v e l C, as nine achiev e d this and one move d to post-D . The eight students with more
substa n t i a l prior knowle d g e (pre- v i s i t C) also appear to be able to increase their knowledg e
(altho u g h less easily than those in the pre-vis i t B categor y ) as 3 of them were able to move
to the Post-v i s i t D catego r y . My study was not intend e d to be a compa r i s o n betwee n the
planeta r i u m and HartRAO , and it is im por t a n t to note that stude n t s visi t i ng either study site
were able to increas e thei r knowle d g e of Big Ideas. Compar ing Table 7.1 with the schools
at which the studen t s were studyi n g shows so me broad trends. Students from Balfour
Forest (BFS) are distri but e d ac ros s the table , but with less repres e n t a t i o n at the post-D
level. Lourde s Girls School (LGS) studen t s mostly show improv e me n t , and are found at
the higher levels of the table. The eight students from Achieveme n t School (AS) are
185
dispersed across the table, while the four fr om Boka mos o Schoo l (BS) are at the lower
levels . I ma ke these observ a t i o n s to demonst r a t e that a student?s positi on on the table is not
solely a reflection of the sc hool at which they are studyin g .
Table 7.2 Categorisation scheme showing student numbers from each school
D 2.6-3.0 BFS 1 LGS 1
AS 2
LGS 2
AS 2
C 2.1-2.5 BFS 4
LGS 2
AS 2
BS 1
BFS 4
LGS 1
B 1.6-2.0 B F S 4
LGS 2
BS 2
AS 1
BS 1
P
os
t Vi
si
t Me
an
S
co
re
s
A 1.0-1.5 BFS 1
AS 1
1.0-1.5 1.6-2.0 2.1-2.5 2.6-3.0
A B C D
Pre Visit Mean Scores
The changes in knowledge shown in Table 7.1 are with respect to knowledge of Big Ideas ,
while my study aime d also to deter mi n e ch ange in astron o my knowl e d g e that studen t s
themselves identif i e d , as shown in the PMMs. So althoug h the finding s about Big Ideas are
interes t i n g , they lack theoret i c a l depth, and in my study I had planned to try and
unders t a n d studen t learni n g about basic astro n o my in a more nuanced way. The value of
Table 7.1 is to provide a cate gorisation scheme for a more detail e d examin a t i o n of
student s ? learnin g . A de tailed examinat i o n reveals not only what students learnt about the
Big Ideas but also how students learn and what contributes to this learning (Chapters 7 and
8).
7.4 Use of Astronomy-Related Vocabulary
Data on students? knowledge of Big Ideas was obtained mainly through the pre- and post-
vi s i t inter vi e w s descri be d in Chapt e r 3. I analysed students? Personal Meaning Maps
princ i p a l l y in order to deter m i n e what individ u a l studen t s l earnt during their visit, as
described in Chapters 6 to 8. However, as recomme n d e d by John Falk (Falk 2003) I was
also able to use the PMMs to determi n e the ch ange in students? use of vocabulary, as this
should docume n t ?the extent of a person ?s awareness and unde rstanding of ?.. the
conce p t ? (Adel ma n et al. 2000 p 39).
Views on sc ient i f i c vocabu l a r y are varied . Pushki n (1996) sugges t s the need for the
scienc e educat i o n commun i t y to use the exis tin g scient i f i c termin o l o g y approp r i a t e l y and
186
accura t e l y , while others propos e that ?the meani n g for terms is varied and always has to be
negoti a t e d ? (Slisk o & Dykstr a , 1997 p. 656). Pr opone n t s of ?talkin g science ? suggest that
students develop their science language in the same way as they find out their way through
the real world, by develo p i n g it though their ex perien c e s (Roth, 2005). The extent to which
students used scientific words in their PM Ms is a reflect i o n of their own ability to
partic i p a t e in the scienc e class. Howeve r , it is possib l e for them to use astron o my - r e l a t e d
words, yet only know them as words, and not be able to ascribe any meaning to them, as
some stude n t s demo n s t r a t e d in their inter v i e w when I asked them about what they had
written .
I determi n e d the change by countin g astr onomy - r e l a t e d words used by students in
their pre-visit PMM and counting the additiona l words used in thei r post-v i s i t PMM. The
results for all 34 students are listed in Appe ndix I, and a summary is provided in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3 Summary of increase in astron omy-related vocabulary shown by students
(n=34)
Number of words used
in pre-visit PMMs
Additional number of
words used in post-visit
PMMs
M e a n Stand a r d
Devia t i o n
Mean Stand a r d
Devia t i o n
20. 3 7.5 6.8 4.0
As the samp le was not randoml y collect e d I have made no attempt to use stati s t i c al tests on
my data, and they are diffi c u l t to compar e with report s fro m the litera t u r e , which do not
provid e raw figure s , but only the result s of paired t-test s (Adelma n et al . 2000, Falk et al .
1998). The standa r d deviat i o n s in Table 7.3 show that there is considerable variation in the
mean numb er of words used by students both prior to and after their visit to the scien c e
centre , reflec t i n g the very indivi dual nature of what students learnt. Students such as Lara,
Douglas and Neo wrote down more words in th eir post-visit PMM than they did in their
initia l PMM, while Zanele , Bhekiw e and Caroli ne only increase d by on e word. Overal l , the
mean figures suggest that student s increas ed their astronomy-rela t e d vocabula r y by one
third, which is a useful benchmar k fo r futur e studi e s of this natur e .
I mapped the extent of students ? vocabulary from their PMMs on to the data summa r i s e d in
Table 7.1, but this demons t r a t e s that the mean number of words used by studen t s in the
different categories shows little relationshi p to their prior knowledge. The only trend
187
evident is that student s w ith the highe s t level of pr ior knowledge (category D) do
appar e n t l y use more words in their PMMs and in crease d these by the greatest amount
(Table 7.4). This suggests that counting words used by student s in their PMMs is not a
reliable way of assessing th eir concept knowledg e or under standing, except perhaps for
student s who use a large number of words.
Table 7.4 Mean number of astronomy-related words used by students in the pre-
visit and additional words used in post-visit PMMs categorised by Big Ideas scores
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
D 2.6-
3.0
23 7 31 11
C 2.1-
2.5
23 5 13 9
B 1.6-
2.0
1 7 6 15 5
P
os
t Vi
si
t Me
an
Sc
or
es
(a
dd
it
io
na
l
w
or
ds
)
A 1.0-
1.5
20 8
1.0-1.5 1.6-2.0 2.1-2.5 2.6-3.0
A B C D
Pre Visit Mean Scores
7.5 The Students
T a b l e 7.5 (based on Table 7.1) shows the st udent s I selecte d whose learni n g about
astro n o my I will descr i be in detai l .
Table 7.5 Students selected for whom portraits were written, using the
categorisation scheme of students developed in Chapter 6.
D 2.6-3.0 Brend a
Helen
(3)
John
(4)
C 2.1-2.5 (10) Neo
(5)
B 1.6-2.0 F a t i ma
(8)
Botho
(2)
P
os
t Vi
si
t Me
an
Sc
or
es
A 1.0-1.5 Nonku lu le ko
(2)
1.0-1.5 1.6-2.0 2.1-2.5 2.6-3.0
A B C D
Pre Visit Mean Scores
Number s in (brac ke t s) show total stude n t s in each categ or y
O f the students who were selected for portrait s 6 of the 7 are female. This is a slightl y
higher number than the propor t i o n of fe male s to males in the study (25/34, or 74%), but the
alternat i v e choices for represen tative students also tend e d to be femal e . Two students (both
from Lourdes Girls School) visited the planet a ri um , while the remain d e r visit e d Hart R A O .
188
For each stude n t I have descr i b e d in the portr a i t why they were chose n as being
repres e n t a t i v e of their catego r y , and have pr ovided a reduced version of their post-vis i t
PMM for exami n a t i o n (all 7 PMMs are shown fu ll- s i z e in Appen d i x J). Each stude n t ? s pre-
vi s i t PMM was in blue pen, with red ink comm en t s by me, the intervi ew e r . Their post-v i s i t
PMM was added to or edite d by the stude n t in penci l (grey ) , with addit i o n a l comme n t s by
the intervi e w e r in green. In the portrai t s , all the studen t s ? words are quoted verba t i m,
inclu di n g spell i n g error s from their PMMs and gramma t i c a l l y incor r e c t phras e s from their
inter v i e w s .
7.5.1 Portrait of Nonkululeko (swo26)
Table 7.6 Position of No nkululeko on Big Ideas classification table
D 2.6-3.0
C 2.1-2.5
B 1.6-2.0
A 1.0-1.5 Nonkululeko
Post A B C D
Pre Mean 1.0-1.5 1.6-
2.0
2.1-2.5 2.6-3.0
Table 7.7 Nonkululeko?s knowledge of Big Ideas
Grav ity Star
concep t
Sun
concep t
Size/
Scale
Sun
mov e men t
Moon
phase s
Parab o lic/
Satellite Dish
Aver ag e
pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n/a 2 2 1.0 1.2
Nonkulu l e k o was chosen as being represe n t a t i v e of student s in the AA categor y .
Accor d i n g to my analy s i s of her PMM and inter vi e w , she went on the trip to
Hartebee s t h o e k Radio Astronomy Observat o r y with little knowle d g e about Big Ideas in
space and astro n o my , and, compa r e d with the other stude nt s , gaine d littl e from the trip.
Both the stude n t s in the ?AA? categ or y had the lowes t mean score for big ideas of all the
partic i p a n t s in the study (Nonk u l u l e k o from 1.0 to 1.2, There s a rema i n e d at 1.2). Howev e r ,
it is import a n t to note that Nonkululeko did gain something from the trip, which I hope to
bring out in this portrait.
Nonkulu l e k o is a 12-year - o l d grade 7 girl st uden t and has attend e d Balfo u r Fores t Schoo l
since grade 1. Nonkululeko lives in a middle class suburb a few kilome t r e s North- W e s t of
Johann e s b u r g city centre , and travel s to the school each day by minibu s taxi. At home she
only speaks isiZul u , a languag e which is co mmonly used by nearly a quarter of the
populati o n of South Afri ca (S tatistics South Africa 2001).
189
Nonkulu l e k o drew her PMM on 8 th October and was intervi e w e d on 15 t h Octob e r , 9
days before she visited HartRA O on 24 th Octob e r toget he r with the classe s who attend e d .
On 30 th October, all the students who had been on the field trip di d their repeat PMM
during school time and I re-int e r v i e w e d Nonkulu l e k o several days later on 10 th Nove mbe r .
Nonkululeko was one of a few st udents whos e interv i e w was over two weeks after the
visit , and this may be partl y respo n s i b l e for her appar e n t limit e d cogni t i ve uptak e .
Howeve r , I do not consid e r it the primar y r eason, as other student s who were intervi e w e d
at the same time as Nonku l u l e k o fell into other catego r i e s (e.g. Ntobek o in AB and
Thapiso in BC).
While Nonkululeko knew roughly where she was going on the visit to HartRA O
and that it was related to ?the planets?, she didn?t know why the class was going there . It is
quite possible that her k nowle d g e of the venue for the visit was due to the filling in of her
PMM for me, rather than anythin g provid e d by the school. She professe d to be looking
forwa r d to the visit, as ?I want to know about plane t s and the ? the galaxy and all ??
(swo26 p r e i n t 043). She also agreed that she was interested in the topic, but appeared to be
just saying this becaus e she though t I wanted to hear it, as her reason was another reference
to knowing about planet s . She was able to give an example of astrono m y in the news, as
she made a refere n c e to a newspa p e r report of a new planet being discovered, which she
reme mbe r e d as ?Clar a ? . Howev e r , she also went on to say that ?the other plane t s , they
come and visit Earth? (swo26p r e i n t 175) and I could not interpre t wh at she meant by this.
Nonkululeko had some experience of looking at the stars and planet s, as she related a
recent ?tour? she had been on where the organi s e rs pointed out the constellation of Scorpio
and the plane t Mars. While she remembe r e d that Mars ?looked like a star but it was red?
(swo26 p r e pm m 059), she couldn ? t reme mbe r what Scorp i o looke d like becau s e ?I didn? t
see properly ? (swo26pr e p m m 067).
Nonkululeko said that she liked sc hool because ?We learn many things?
(swo26 p r e i n t 195). Her favour i t e su bjec t s were Englis h becaus e it ?teach[es] me how to
read and write? (swo26 p r e i nt 207) and life orient a t i o n becau s e it?s about peopl e . In
contras t her least favouri t e subject s were economi c and ma nage me n t scienc e and human
and social science, because they are both hard and she do esn ? t alway s under s t a n d them.
When asked about her career plans, she said she would like to be a teacher ?but aih it?s
hard? (swo26 p o s i n t 202). In her spare time, Non kulul e k o said she watched televisi o n (soap
operas and childre n ? s ? progra m me s ) and wr ote in a small book, not a diary, but ?my
190
person a l detai l s and music ? (swo2 6 p r e i nt 231). The most recent book she read was a
teenage novel in English. Nonkulul e k o is not sure if scienti s t s have ever found life outside
the Earth, and thinks that there might be life on Mars. She was emphati c that aliens do not
exist ?There is nothing like aliens. They are just made up? (swo26p r e i n t 297), and does
not read the horosc o p e . Nonkul u l e k o consid e r s he rsel f religi o u s (a Christi a n ) but has never
really thought about how her faith might relate to the univers e .
In her use of astrono my words and term s Nonkulul e k o ? s astronomy knowledg e was
about averag e . While she used 18 astron o my - r e l a t e d words in her pre-vi s i t PMM (the mean
for the study was 20, and for her school was 16) her post-visit PMM increased by 7 words,
slightly above the school and study mean. All the vocabul a r y she used was common to
other studen t s in the study, but on the basis of her increase in vocabula r y she appeared to
have gained some knowl e d g e from the trip.
Figure 7.3 Nonkululeko?s pre-visit Personal Meaning Map
191
Nonkululeko?s pre-visit personal meaning map (Figure 7.3 and Appendix J) was
simil a r to those of many other stude n t s in the study. She listed the nine planet s togeth e r
with some brie f fact s abou t seve r al of them. Fo r examp l e that Jupit e r is the bigge st plane t
and Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun. She referred to stars as being ?a lighting
thing? (swo26 a p r e 11) created by God, and that they are our ?friend s , family and ne gbour ?
(swo26 a p r e 18). She also referr e d to stars being at the gala xy and Milky Way. She stated
that space consis t s of open sp ace, contai ni n g planet s , stars, galax y and the Milky Way.
When probed about her PMM, she confirme d that ?God created stars so th at it can shine at
night? (swo26 p r e p m m 003). Althou g h she knew th e term galaxy she wa s unable to explain
its meani n g or its relat i on s h i p to the term Milky Way. She furth e r refe r re d to a space s h i p
and rocket, althou g h she found diffic u l t y in expr ess i n g herself here. When I asked if she
wanted to say it in is iZulu she said no, suggesting that she just found expression difficult,
rather than it being a languag e proble m, thus:
Intervi e w e r : Okay . If you said that in Zulu , could you tell me more ?
Nonk u l u l e ko : No.
Inte r v i e w e r : You woul d n? t be able to?
Nonk u l u l e ko : Yes.
(swo2 6 p r e p m m 081)
She also appea r e d to have diffe r i ng ideas on aliens. Having said she doesn?t believe in
them in the struct u r e d inter vi e w , she menti o n e d that some planet s have them. She could
not explain the discrepa n c y .
During the struct u r e d interv i e w relate d to Big Ideas, Nonkululeko demonstrated
very limited unders t a n d i n g of many concept s . He r idea of stars was limit e d to them shini n g
at night and their shape (?like starfishes?), but did not know their size or composition
(level 1). Nonkululeko?s ideas about the sun we re fairly mi nimal and na?ve. She knew that
it is big and yellow and can be used for drying things (level 1). Howeve r , her concep t of
big was not probed , and in a subseq u e n t answ er she thought that the Sun and Moon are the
same size; overa l l she was classi f i e d for size and scal e as being at level 1. She could not
expla i n why the Sun moves acros s the sky each day, excep t to expre s s that ?beca u se the
sun needs places to go?. She appear e d to be lieve that it really is the Sun moving to
?Americ a and all those places ? (swo26preint 79, 83), and was classified at level 1.
Nonkulul e k o could describe how the Moon cha nges shape over the course of a week, but
did not know why this is (level 1).
192
When asked about a satellite , Nonkululeko said she had se en one, but struggled to
expres s hersel f furthe r . When referr e d to a sate ll i t e dish, she was able to say that it is round
and ?half? , and points towar d s a spaces h i p, ?beca u s e the spaces h i p gives us the
programmes and all those things ?? (swo26preint 151), and was classified at level 2. She
was the only studen t in the study who profes s e d both to not knowing what gravity is, and
not knowing the word (level 0).
After her visit to HartRA O , Nonku l u l e k o added considerably to her PMM (Figure
7.4 and Appendi x J), filling the reverse side of the paper with numerou s facts.
Figure 7.4 Nonkululeko?s post-visit PMM
S e v e r a l facts were a repetit i o n of her pre-vis i t PMM, such as her refere nc e to the 9 planet s ,
Pluto being the coldest , Mercur y being the hottest and stars being in the galaxy. However ,
she wrote down severa l new pieces of informa t i o n , inclu di n g the follow i n g:
? Which bottles went high and low (refe r e n c e to the Coke bottl e rocket s )
193
? A d d i t i o n al plane t s to th e nine named ones.
? A d d i t i o n a l facts abou t the nine planet s
? B l a c k spots on the Sun
? V a r i o u s feature s of Mars: water, land, and orbit.
? A description of the Moon landing a nd the time taken to get there
? A star bigger than the Sun
Further probing of several of the ideas was not carried out to any gr eat exte n t , due to time
constr a i n t s in her intervi e w . Her unders t a n di n g of a galaxy was still minima l : ?A galaxy I
think is where the stars stays and the moon and the solar system and the everythi n g ?
(swo26pospmm 35), but she understood that it w ould contain thousand s and thousands of
stars . Her belie f in alien s was still ambiv a l e n t : in the post-v i s i t PMM she wrote that she
believ e d in them, but when questi o n e d she sa id she did not, althoug h she had read about
them in a magazin e . I conside r that Nonkulu l e k o ? s change s to her PMM are suppleme n t a r y
facts that she has accumul a t e d from her visit : examp l e s of addit i o n in human const r u c t i vi s t
terms .
During the structured interview, several of Nonkululeko?s ideas rema ined the same
or very simila r to her pre-vi s i t ideas . These include d the follow i n g :
? H e r concep t of the sun as be ing ?big?, shining by day and moving round the Earth each
day;
? A l t h o u g h she now thought the S un is bigger than the Moon, she could not tell which
was closer to the Earth;
? Stars as shining at night;
? A satell i t e dish pointi ng to a spaceship in or der to give us progr a m me s on televi s i o n
? A n inabili t y to talk about what gravity is or does
I n these structur e d question s Nonkululeko was not able to arti culate clearly any significant
change in her knowle d g e about the Sun, stars, satellites or gravity. She did however state
that star s are bigger than the Earth, wherea s previo u s l y she c ould not tell their size. Table
7.8 shows Nonkulu l e k o ? s learnin g analy s e d using my human const r u c t i v i s t model . This
and subseq u e n t tables for the portra i t studen t s shows the freque n c y of HC codes ident i fi ed
in students? pre- and post-vis i t PMMs and inter vi e w s . I incl ude the pre-vi s i t columns as it
is possi b l e for studen t s to expres s affect i v e an d conative knowledge prio r to their visi t , for
exampl e their excite me n t befor e going or their persona l prepara t i o n for the visit.
194
Table 7.8 Frequency of Human Constr uctivism codes for Nonkululeko
Knowledge
Construction
category
PrePMM &
Interview
PostPMM &
Interview
Pre
Interview
Post
Interview
Totals
A dd itio n n/a 10 n/a 4 14
Emerge n c e n/a 1 n/a 0 1
Differen tiatio n n/a 0 n/a 0 0
Discr imin a tio n n/a 0 n/a 0 0
Reco n tex tu alisatio n n/a 0 n/a 0 0
Affective 0 0 5 4 9
Conativ e 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 0 11 5 8 24
In Human Constr u c t i v i s t term s Nonkul u l e k o showed severa l additions to her knowledge
after her visit , but no other examp l e s of cogni t i v e learni n g in the HC fr ame w o r k , such as
superor d i n a t e learnin g or differe n t i a t i o n . If N onkulu l e k o had been gi ven a for mal written
pre- and post- t e s t about simpl e conce p t s in astro n o my befor e and after her visit to
HartR A O , the resul t s of her struc t ur e d inte rvi e w indicat e that she would have shown no
gain in knowle d g e . From a non-co g n i t i ve view po i n t , Nonkul u l e k o admitt e d to enjoyi n g
playi n g with the rocke t s and was surpr i s e d that the whispering dishes worked and that the
radio teles c o p e can receiv e messa g e s from sp a ce. She found the slide show on the Moon
landings ?boring?. After the visi t she was unable to explain th e purpose of the visit, but
when promp t e d she agree d that both learni n g and fun were related to the visit?s purpose .
She told me that although she would like to visit Hartebee s t h o e k Radio Astronomy
Observatory again, she had told nobody about the visit, and had not thoug ht about it since.
In the study, she was the only student inte rviewed who professed to having not told
anybod y , and one of 3 who had not though t about the trip since (althoug h only 22 students
were asked this question). These negative affectiv e aspects of her visit suggest that the visit
did not have a strong emotio n a l effect on N onku l u l e k o , and may be part of the reaso n for
her mini ma l learni n g of Big Ideas from the visit.
However , the results of her P MM indicate that in fact she did learn somet h i n g from the
visit. She was able to descri b e how Neil Armstr o n g was the first (?whit e ? ) man on the
Moon, and that he left a footpri n t showing ?that he was here [on] the moon? (swo26 b p o s
23). These are examp l e s of Shen? s cultur a l science literacy , wher e scie n c e achi e veme n t s
are appreci a t e d (Shen, 1975). She also wrote (w ro n g l y ) that it takes mont h s to get to and
from the Moon. She was able to br iefly descri b e a number of f eatur e s of the planet s : Mars
takes 88 days to comp le t e [orbi t ] the sun, Saturn has rings, Pluto is the coldest and
195
Mercury the hottest planet , Jupite r is dange ro u s as ?when you put your foot on the ground
you die becau s e of the atmos p h e r e ? (swo2 6 p o s p m m 07), and that there are more than 9
planets. She also noted that the Sun has bl ack spots. It is lik ely, given Nonkululeko?s
appa r e nt limi t e d inte r es t in astro no my that she learnt all these facts from the visit to
HartRAO rather than fr om any other source s .
Nonkul u l e ko is a good examp l e of a studen t who does not appea r to be acade m i c a l l y
bright, althoug h I was unable to obtain her school result s. Her prior knowledg e and
unders t a n d i n g of Big Ideas in basic astro n o my c oncep t s such as the sun, stars and gravity
was very limite d , and appear e d to show very lit tle or no change as a result of the visit. For
such a studen t , a visit to a scien c e centr e usi ng a tradi t i o na l pre-t e s t : p o s t - t e s t asses s me n t of
learni n g would demon s t r a t e that the visit was not ?succe s s f u l ? , as the studen t would appear
not to have learnt anythi n g . Howeve r , what sh e did learn were the additi o n a l facts I have
describ e d . For Nonkulu l e k o and other studen t s who showed limited ?forma l ? learnin g , the
princi p a l (if not exclus i v e ) ty pe of learn i n g is the incre me n t a l additi o n of relativ e l y minor
facts. Nonkululeko?s inabil i t y to link thes e with her existing knowledge structures (and
show differ e n t i a t i o n or emerge n c e ) is likely to be mainly becaus e her prior knowle d g e of
the topi c is very limit e d . A chall e n ge for bot h teache r s and scienc e centre educat or s is how
to engage such a stude n t more effec t i ve l y during a school visit, pr obably by providing
some pre-v i s i t activi t i e s that will engag e thei r inter e s t , or by ensur i n g that the prese nt a t i o ns
at the centr e (situa t i o n a l inter e s t ) are suffi c i e n t l y stimu l a t i n g .
7.5.2 Portrait of Botho (tsw04)
Table 7.9 Position of Botho on Big Ideas classification table
D 2.6-3.0
C 2.1-2.5
B 1.6-2.0 Botho
A 1.0-1.5
Post A B C D
Pre Mean 1.0-1.5 1.6-2.0 2.1-2.5 2.6-3.0
Table 7.10 Botho?s knowledge of Big Ideas
Grav ity Star
concep t
Sun
concep t
Size/
Scale
Sun
mov e men t
Moon
phase s
Parab o lic/
Satellite Dish
Aver ag e
pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post
1 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1.6 1.9
Botho represents category BB, which comp rises 2 students (Botho and Caroline) who
visit e d the scien c e centr e with below - a v e r a g e knowledge of Big Id eas, and demonstrated
196
little change in their knowle d g e af ter the visit. Both student s in this category showed a very
simil a r profi l e : their knowl e d g e level prior to the visit wa s a mea n of 1.6, and this
increase d to 1.9 after the visit. They differe d howeve r in their use of astrono my - r e l a t e d
vocabulary in their Personal Meaning Maps. While Botho increased hers from 11 to 20
words, Carolin e only increas e d from 19 to 20 words.
Botho is a 13-year- o l d grade 7 girl student at Bokamos o School . Like most of the
studen t s in this townsh i p Botho speaks SeTs wana at home, and no other languages.
SeTswana is spoken by just over 8% of th e South Africa n popula t i o n (Stati s t i c s South
Africa, 2001). The school is relativ e l y close to her home and she walks there every day.
Botho drew her pre-visi t PMM on 7 Nove mber , and was interviewed on the same day, 10
days before visiti n g Harteb e e s t h o e k Radio Astron o my Observ a t o r y on 17 Nove mbe r . She
added to her PMM on 3 Decembe r , some 16 da ys after the visit. Unfort u n a t el y I was
unable to obtain Botho? s acade mi c resul t s , but later found that she was awarded 3 rd prize in
the 2003 Southern Skies Challe n g e in the ?reme mbe r i n g ? essa y category. This involved
writin g a story about the night sky which ha d origi n a t e d as a tradit i o n a l story in her
community.
Like the 3 other students at Bokamoso wh om I inter v i e w e d, Both o was a me mbe r
of the science club at the school, and the vis it to HartRAO was arranged by the teacher in
charge of the club. The visit wa s open to all members of the club; whoever was able to pay
for the visit was allowe d to go. Botho knew the purpose of the visit, th at it was ?to learn
more about astro n o mi e s and astro n o mi e s are pa rt of the galaxie s , stars and planets ?
(tsw04 p r e i n t 017). As a science club, the student s had been preparin g for the visit; after
school on Monday and Wednesd a y s . Botho he rself had ?been preparing more about
planet s ? (tsw04 p r e i n t 025). This was in contrast to almost all other students in the study,
who had made no preparation at all. Botho said she was looking fo rward to the visit
becaus e she wanted ?to learn more about the Astronomy? (tsw04preint 045), but her
manner did not sugges t much excite me n t rega rdi n g the trip. Botho professed to liking
school , princi p a l l y for reason s of learni n g : ?I think that school is import a n t becaus e
educat i o n is a key to succes s so withou t e ducat i o n there? s no life? (tsw04 p r e i n t 237). Her
favourite subjects were scienc e and mathe ma t i c s and her re ason for liking them was that
she wanted to become a doctor. Her least favour i t e subjec t was histor y ?becau s e I don?t
like past things ? (tsw04 p r e i n t 257). My impre ssi o n of Botho was that she felt school was
impor t a n t as a means to furth e r i n g her futur e . She joine d the scien c e club becau s e she liked
197
science and wanted to know more about it, and in her spare time she said she studied. I got
the impres si o n that she wanted to please me as the interv i e w e r , by appear i n g to be
studiou s . She said that in her spare time she plays , watch e s telev i s i on (she likes cartoons)
and reads novels (she wasn?t specif i c about a title, despit e my probing) . Another indicati o n
of pleasin g an ?author i t y figure ? was her co mment about her father and books: ?My father
likes to go to the libra r y and when he comes from the library he gi ve me some books to
read so I read? (tsw04pr e i nt 293). Although she wasn?t que stio n e d specifi c a l l y about
aliens , Botho thoug h t scien t i s t s had found lif e ?at space? altho u g h she didn?t think it had
been found elsewhe r e in the univers e . She pr ofess e d to being religi o u s , and, like most
studen t s , believ e d that God create d the planet s , space and the univer s e .
Figure 7.5 Botho?s pre-visit PMM
B o t h o used only 11 astron o my- r e l a t e d words in her pre-vi s i t PMM, but increa s e d this by 9
words after the visit . These numbe r s were below-a v e r a g e for her school (18 and 11
respectively) and for the study pr ior to the visit (20), but ju st above the study?s post-visit
average (7). Botho?s pre-vis i t PMM (Figure 7.5 and Appendix J) was unusual in that she
wrote substan t i a l sentenc e s about relativ e l y few ideas, and was one of only 3 students
198
(Nonkulul e k o was another) who referred to God in writin g. In her PMM Botho wrote
about space as a place where there are plan et s and moons, and that if you go there you
need clothe s to keep you war m and give you oxygen. She referre d to there being ?too
much? gravit y there and people ?just move lik e they are flying ? (t sw04apre 25). She also
discus s e d stars as small bright things that can be seen using a telesc op e that were created
by God to help ?the angels to go and see Je sus when he was born? (tsw04a p r e 21). She
also wrote about the Sun as a st ar and its visibility, as well as the 9 planets, although the
only one she named was Earth.
Botho showed varying levels of knowledge regar d i n g Big Ideas in astro n o my prior
to her visit to HartRAO . Her knowled g e of gr avit y was minima l : she was able to say that
gravity causes a pen to fall down towards th e ground, but had no idea about gravity on the
Moon, Jupiter or the Sun. Her PM M indicat e d that she associat e d gravity with people
appearin g to fly, whi ch suggests she had seen ima ges of pe ople encounte r i n g
weightle s s n e s s . Her knowledg e of stars indicat e d no substan t i a l scient i f i c understanding
(ligh t s at night) , and a refere n c e to their being ma de by God to guide angel s to Jesus? birth .
However, Botho did know that the Sun is a star (and therefore presumab ly vice versa), that
their apparent size is related to distance and that stars are about th e size of the Sun. For
similar reasons, her knowledge of the Sun was classi fi e d at le vel 2, and, with the help of
the model, she could explai n that day a nd night are caused by the Earth spinning.
Regar d i n g her idea of size and scale in the solar system, Bot ho showed some
unders t a n d i n g that the appare n t size of stars is due to thei r distance, but when probed on
this she couldn ? t explai n why. She also knew that the Sun is larger than the Moon, and that
the latter is closer although her explanation was quite interesting, as she invoked the idea
that altho u g h we somet i me s see a half moon, we never see a half sun. On these bases she
was classified at level 2 for her knowledge of size and scale. Like a bout half the studen t s ,
when asked about the Moon, Botho could descri b e its phases but she didn?t know why they
occur; she suggest e d the weathe r as a possible explanat i o n . Bot ho?s knowledge of satellites
was minima l : she didn?t know what a satell i t e was, but could relate to a satell i t e dish.
When questioned about a dish she knew it was relate d to televi s i o n but didn?t know the
reason for its dish shape, in what direc ti o n it faced, or where it was pointin g to.
After the visit Botho added severa l fact s to her PMM (Figure 7.6 and Appendix J),
partic u l a r l y about stars. She st ated that stars are made of a gas called hydrog e n , and that
you cannot use a telesco p e to l ook at stars on a cloudy day. She noted that orange stars ?is
199
gonna die soon? and that stars ?a re there during the mornin g ? , but we can?t see them due to
the bright n e s s of the Sun (tsw04 b p o s 10). She al so noted that stars make sounds , and when
questioned about this she could describe th e sounds made by differen t types of stars:
Inter v i e w e r : Okay . And you see they make sound s . How did you ...?
Botho : We have it at the other pl ace and they said it depen d s on how big
is the star and if it is big it make like booo, booo, booo .
Inte r v i e w e r : You heard the sound s ?
Botho : Ja.
Inter v i e w e r : How did they , they recor d e d the sound s , what did they use to
liste n ?
Botho : I think they used the satel l i t e .
Intervie w e r : They used the satellit e . You mean that big satel l i t e dish.
Botho : Ja.
Inter v i e w e r : Okay . And you say you heard the big ones make that sound , what
about a small one, did you hear any other s ?
Both o : Ja we heard and this make like ting , ting.
Inter v i e w e r : Okay . Did you know stars made sound s ?
Both o : No.
(tsw0 4 p o s p m m 49-7 1 )
Figure 7.6 Botho?s post-visit PMM
200
Botho also made brief co mments about foot pri n t s on the Moon, spacecr a f t splashi n g down
in water on retur n from space and three plane t s she had not referred to in the pre-visi t
PMM: Pluto, Saturn and Mars. Whe n discussi n g the latt er plan e t , she refer r e d to the ?War
of the Worlds? slide show de monst r a t e d at HartRAO . Unlike her PMM, in her post-vi s i t
struct u r e d inter vi e w , Botho changed few of her ideas.
? S h e stated that there is a little gravit y on the Moon (whereas previously she had
not known this) but did not know about Jupite r or the Sun.
? S h e noted that the Sun can be used as a sun dial to tell the time.
? S h e thoug h t that the Moon chang e s shape ?becaus e of the seasons ? .
? S h e made no change s to her ideas of star s (excep t those I have descri b e d from
the PMM), size and scale or the satelli t e dish.
Botho is a good example of a student who, althoug h she appeare d not to learn any
addition a l knowledg e about Big Ideas, demons trated that she did learn a limited amount
from the visit. This knowle d g e incr e a s e is mainly evide n t in her post-v i si t PMM and
associ a t e d intervi e w . The facts she reme mbe r e d from the visit are highly persona l and
relat e directl y to several of the exhi b i t s and demon s t r a t i o ns at Hart R A O . While Botho
improv e d her basic scienc e liter a c y in the form of these new facts, she did not show any
evidenc e of change in her cultur al science literacy (Shen, 1975).
Using the human constructivist categorie s of knowledge constr uction, Table 7.11
summar i s e s how the change s in Botho? s knowle dge occur r e d . From a cogni t i ve viewpoi n t ,
she demon s t r at e d severa l examp l e s of addit i on , wher e she incre me n t a l l y adde d smal l
pieces of knowle d g e to her pr e-exi s t i n g knowle d g e . In most cases these additional facts
were across a variety of concept s from grav ity to the Sun to the Moon landings. However,
there was one area which appear s to have captu re d her attenti o n more than others: various
facts about stars . Where a s I cat ego r i s e d Botho at knowle d g e leve l 2 for her concep t of stars
prior to the visit , I consi d e r e d that the addi ti o n a l informa t i o n she provid e d in her post-v i s it
PMM and interview enabled her to be placed at level 3. For the same reason, I suggest that
her concept of star was considerably extended as a result of the visit, and was actuall y
differ e n t i a t e d , her only exampl e of cognit i ve le arni n g which was not cl assif i e d as additio n .
Unlike mos t other student s except maybe Brenda, Botho showed only 3 examples of
affectiv e learning after the visi t: surprise at the fact that stars die and the experienc e she
told her parents about afterw a r d s : the whis p e r i n g dishe s . Simil a r l y , the visit did not appear
201
to have motiva t e d her much into findin g out more about astrono my (the conativ e aspect) .
Howeve r , her father , who she mentio n e d prio r to her visit as bor rowing books from the
library for her, brought her a book about astrono my and she said she read about stars from
it. It is ther efo r e possi ble that in the fortn i ght between the visit and my interviewing her,
Botho had gained some of the informa t i o n about stars that she wrote in her post-vis i t PMM
from the book that her fathe r got her from the librar y . This is itsel f of inter e s t , as it
demons t r a t e s that a studen t who repres e n t s thos e who appear e d to gain very litt l e from the
visit did in fact acquire some knowledg e about a specific concept which interest e d her:
stars. A further conati v e aspect which did not emerg e from the inter v i ew data was the fact
that Botho enter e d the Southe r n Skies essa y compe t i t i o n . This compet i t i o n was held in
2003 as part of World Space Week to encour a ge peopl e betwe e n ages 5 and 23 years to
partici p a t e in astrono m y . Botho won 3 rd prize for the categor y which involve d telling a
story about the night sky and stars which sh e had heard in her commun i t y , which furthe r
rein f o r c es her inter es t in stars .
Table 7.11 Frequency of Human Co nstructivism codes for Botho
Knowledge
construction
category
PrePMM &
Interview
PostPMM &
Interview
Pre
Interview
Post
Interview
Totals
A dd itio n n/a 8 n/a 5 13
Emerg e n c e n/a 0 n/a 0 0
Diff er en tiatio n n/a 1 n/a 0 1
Disc r imin a tio n n/a 0 n/a 0 0
Reco n tex tu a lisa tio n n/a 0 n/a 0 0
Affe c tiv e 0 0 2 3 5
Cona tiv e 0 0 0 1 1
Totals 0 9 2 9 20
While Botho? s concep t u a l change in Big Ideas was limited , she mana ged to extend her
knowledge of stars, and the vi sit clearly motivated her inte rest in the topic. Like
Nonkululeko, her knowledge gain appears to be mainly by additi o n , althou g h in her
understanding of stars she show ed evidence of differentiation. From the affective and
conativ e perspe c t i v e s , Botho shows slight l y mo re interes t in astrono my than Nonkulu l e k o ,
and her reading about stars and enterin g the competi t i o n shows th at her inter e s t in the topic
was likely kindle d by the visit to HartRA O . Botho is an exampl e of a studen t whose
affectiv e and conative experien c e s durin g the visit were proba b l y more impor t a n t than the
scienc e learni n g about Big Ideas. Her intere s t in stars mo tivat e d her to enter and win a
compe t i t i o n prize (which she did not discu s s with me in her inter v i ew ) . This is also an
202
example of the sort of post-vis i t learning wh ich is not fully captured in a study such as
mine, which concentrated on learning during th e visit. Falk and Dier king (2000) note that
if studen t s are remi nd e d of the visit during the subseq u e n t months afte r their return , this
will furth er reinfor c e their learni ng , and it will become establ i s h e d in their long- t e r m
me mory. Botho would therefor e have b een a good candida t e for later follow- u p .
7.5.3 Portrait of Neo (swo42)
Table 7.12 Position of Neo on Bi g Ideas classification table
D 2.6-3.0
C 2.1-2.5 Neo
B 1.6-2.0
A 1.0-1.5
Post A B C D
Pre Mean 1.0-1.5 1.6-2.0 2.1-2.5 2.6-3.0
Table 7.13 Neo?s knowledge of Big Ideas
Grav ity Star
concep t
Sun
concep t
Size/
Scale
Sun
mov e men t
Moon
phase s
Parab o lic/
Satellite Dish
Aver ag e
pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post
1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2.5 n/a 1.5 2 2.1 2.3
Neo was chosen as an example of a student in the CC categ or y . Accor di ng to my analy s i s
of her PMM and interv i e w , she went on th e trip to Hartebe e s t h o e k Radio Astron o my
Observatory with above-average knowledge of Big Ideas, and, like both Nonkululeko and
Botho gained relat i v e l y littl e from the trip (her mean changed from 2.1 to 2.3). She is
represe n t a t i v e of the five st uden t s in the CC catego r y , alt hou g h her post-vi s i t knowle d g e is
slightl y lowe r than the other CC studen t s , whose post visit mean score was 2.4.
Neo is a 13-year - o l d grade 7 girl student and has attended Balf our Forest School, a
public prima r y schoo l in the northe r n subur b s of Johann e s b u r g since grade 1. Like many of
the student s at this school , Neo lives in a town ship in the northern part of Johanne s b u r g ,
and trave l s to the schoo l each day by minib u s ta xi. At home she speak s SePed i , a langu a g e
spoken by 50% of the inhabi t a n t s of Limpop o Pr ovi n c e , and the mothe r tongu e of 9.4% of
the South Africa n popula t i o n (Stati s t i c s Sout h Afric a , 2001) and some Engli s h . Neo drew
her PMM on 8 th October and was interviewed on 23 rd Octobe r , the day before she visite d
Hartebe e s t h o e k Radio Astrono my Observatory together with the classes who attended. On
30 th Octobe r , all the studen t s who had been on the fiel d trip did th eir repea t PMM during
school time and I re-inte r v i e w e d Neo on the same day.
203
Neo state d that she was inter e s t e d in space , and refer r e d to its appea l seve r a l time s
durin g the inter vi e w . Her main inter e s t was in observi n g planet s and the fact that they have
no life on them. She remembe r e d that one of the plane t s , eithe r Mars or Mercu r y had been
in the news recent l y on TV (it was Mars). Neo enjoyed school, and regarde d it as being
import a n t for going on to high school and beyond. Her favouri t e subjec t s were Science and
Techno l o g y , and she relate d them to Mark Shu ttl e w o r t h and the fact that she too would
like to go to space . Her least favou r i t e subj ec t s were Economi c and Manage me n t Scienc e
and Human and Social Science: ?I think that I don?t like talk ing about the past because,
what?s past is past. We have to look at the future?.? (swo42prei n t 231). Neo?s career
plans are to be a scient i st , and quite ambit i o u s l y to ?be the first Scient i s t to find anythi n g
that any Scientis t s haven?t found out of sp ace? (swo42po s i n t 185). Her main recreati o n is
gymnas t i c s , and she likes to watch sport on te levi s i o n . She doesn? t ap pear to read much,
and only referr e d to a book she read last ye ar, which covere d the sun and moon. Neo
knows that extra- t e r r e s t r i a l life has never been found, and thinks it unlikel y that it exists
anywhe r e else in the univers e ; she does not believe in aliens . She reads the horoscope in
magazin e s , and althoug h she doesn?t know ho w astrologers predict the future, she does
belie ve that their predi ct i o n s are somet i me s ri ght . She consi d e r s hers el f as being religi o u s ,
and believes God?s relationship to the univer s e is such that: ?I think that God made space
and all ? Just for people to go and explore what?s happening in the ? In the Earth and
on space. What?s going on? (swo42 p r e i nt 341). In view of her own inter e s t in the topic ,
this suggest s a view of a created univers e for the purpose of explora t i o n by humans.
In her use of astrono my words and terms Neo?s knowled g e of astrono m y , while not
being very extensive, was fa irly sound. In her pre-visit PMM she used only 7 astronomy-
r e l at e d words, which was consid er a bl y below bo th the avera ge for the study (20 words ) as
well as her schoo l (16 words ) . Howev e r , her post-vi s i t vocabu l a r y increa s e d by 11 words,
approx i ma t e l y twice the schoo l and study averag e . All the vocabul a r y she used was
common to other studen t s in th e study, and Neo showed the cap acit y to express hersel f and
her knowledg e of concepts in astronom y .
As shown by the blue writing , Neo?s init ial personal meaning map (Figure 7.7 and
Appendix J) was relatively lim ited , but she did describ e aspect s of each of the principal
words space , stars and planet s . For exampl e , she descri b e d space as a place ?full of
nothing ? , with ?no air or oxygen to breathe ? , ?no gravit y to pull th ings down? and where
no one can live (swo42p r e 9, 16). Her descrip tion of the planets and stars was less
204
extens i v e , but includ e d the Earth rotati n g on it s axis (?the plant Earth roats on it aexs? ) to
cause day and night (swo42pre 13 ), as well as the sun bei ng a very big star. In her
interview based on her PMM, Ne o expanded br iefly on two of the planets: Pluto and
Mercur y , but otherw i s e added li ttle to what she had drawn.
Figure 7.7 Neo?s PMM (pre and post)
D u r i n g the struct u r e d interv i e w relate d to Big Ideas, Neo demons t r a t e d her unders t a n d i n g
of sever a l conce p t s in basic astro n o my . Although she showed an initial teleolo g i c a l
explan a t i o n for the sun moving across the sky every day (?It mo ves across the sky
everyday so that we can know if it?s day or if it?s night? ) , sh e did provid e a clear
explana t i o n of the Earth?s rotati o n as being the cause of the apparen t moveme n t
(swo42pr e i n t 071), and was classi f i e d at level 3. Unlike most students in the study, she
could also explai n that the moon?s shape cha nge over the course of the month was caused
by the sun shinin g on the moon (level 3):
Neo: It? s becaus e of the sun. If may b e the sun shines a little bit half or
quart e r of the moon. And that the moon is alway s full, it never
cuts in half or anyth i n g . It?s alway s full. It?s only the sun, it
depen d s on how the sun refle c t s on the moon. (swo4 2 p r e i n t 095)
205
Only one third of the stude n t s were able to ac count for the appar e n t chang e in shape of the
moon in their pre-vi s i t interv i e w . Furthe r , Ne o descri b e d how the sun was larger than the
moon, but that it is further away from the Eart h and hence looks a similar size in the sky.
However, Neo?s knowled g e showed some clear limitat i o n s , for exampl e althoug h
she knew that the sun is a star, she regar de d it as being ?bigg e r ? than other stars, and did
not elabor a t e on it furthe r . I classi f i e d this kno wle d g e on sun-st a r differ e n c e s as being at a
low level . She had very littl e idea of tempe r a t u r e , eithe r room temp e r a t ur e or boili ng
point s , and appea r e d to be guess i n g these and th e fact that the surfac e of the sun mi ght be
360?C, and was classi f i e d for the Sun concep t as level 2. Furthe r , Neo appear e d to have a
fairly limite d concep t of what a star is: she knew a star is like a sun, and that it is further
away in space, but consid e r e d that the sun is one of the bigges t stars, and think s that the
sun can reflec t on the stars (level 2). Her knowle d g e of size and scale was her weakes t
area, as was classifi e d as bei ng at level 1. She unders t o o d that a satelli t e is some sort of
object outsid e the Earth, but c ould not explain it further . She also thoug h t that a satel l i t e
dish would norma l l y point to the sun, becaus e ?m ost of the things need the sun to work.
So, withou t it, maybe, if it can point to space, becaus e space is blank, I think there would
be nothin g comi ng in or out? (s wo42preint 171) (level 2.5).
Like most studen t s , Neo could provid e at least a limite d defini t i o n of gravit y , as
some sort of force that pu lls things down. However, be yond that idea her pre-visit
inter v i e w shows minima l elabo r at i on of the conce p t : she belie v e d (like over 80% of the
student s ) that there is no gravity either in space, on the moon, on Jupiter or on the sun
(leve l 1). So we can see that prior to he r visit to HartRAO, Neo bot h possesse d some
scienti f i c knowled g e of astr on o my concep t s (such as the m oon phases) and also a number
of either limit e d conce p t i o n s or miscon c e p t i o ns (such as her understanding of stars and
gravit y ) .
After her visit to HartRAO, Neo added se veral sections to her PMM (the grey
pencil writing in Figure 7.7 a nd Appendix J). First, it appear s that she now knew that there
are such things as sunspots, and that although they look small on the sun, they are massiv e
in size. This knowledge , which I identifi e d as the HC categor y of additio n , would have
been a direct resul t of the visit to Hart RAO , as a sunspot was demonst r a t e d by the
educ a t or . It is like l y that th e demons t r a t i o n made an impres s i o n on her, as she descri b e d
the sunspot (or suns point as she initial l y ca lled it) in her post-v i s i t PMM as follow s :
206
Neo: The sun has a dot in the mi ddl e of it, the dot is very small seein g
it from the eath but its biger than the size of our Earth , and that
dot ordat s [? ] are the suns point
(swo4 2 p o s 20)
However , her descrip t i o n of the sunspot dem ons t r a t e s her limited unders t a n d i n g of what it
actual l y is. When quest i o n e d in the inter v i e w , she indica t e d that the dot is always there,
and is the middle of the sun:
Neo: I think that is the middl e of the sun and it?s a bit cold in that sun
spot and the sun spot is more bigge r than our Earth , may b e abou t
100 Earth s can fit into that dot.
(swo4 2 p o s pm m 11)
It is impor t a n t to note that Neo acqui r e d a new conce p t as a result of the visit to HartR A O :
the sunspot . In terms of hum an const r u ct i vi s t theor y , Neo added or subsumed the concept
of sunspo t , and I regard this as an increm e n t a l increas e in her knowled g e of the Sun. She
now had an additio n a l fact at her disposal regarding the Sun: it has a sunspot. However,
she also appear e d to understand the concept of scale with respect to the sun, a sunspot and
the Earth , in that she could relat e the size of th e sunspot on the sun to th e fact that it is so
massiv e that 100 Earths can fit in to it. I conside r this to be an example of differe n t i a t i o n ,
where her concep t of the sun has been extend e d to resul t in great e r understanding of scale
with respect to the Sun, the Earth and sunspots. Ho wever, her idea of a s unspo t is that it is
the centre of the sun, where it is cooler. This misconception she has acquired was probably
the resul t of the fact that the part i c ul a r suns pot visible on that day happened to lie in the
middle of the sun?s disc.
After the visit , Neo made some refer e n c e to the Moon, which she did not do
directly in the pre-vis it PMM. I regard her referen c e to a number of fact s about the Moon
as being example s of human constru c t i v i s t addition, as follows, using her words:
Neo: The moon has no oxyge n but it has abou t 5 to 6 gravi t y . Righ t
know if we were to go to the [M oon ] we would stil l find the foot
print of the first man who went to the moon becau s e the is no
wind to blow it off. The [Moon ] has cr at e r s on it becau s e
scienc e t i st say that the craters are being formed by the co mets
which crash the moon.
(swo4 2 p o s 15)
She alrea d y had refer r e d to the fact that th ere is no oxygen in space in the pre-vi s i t PMM,
and here she extends this idea to the Moon. Additi o na l facts which she has acqui re d are
regardi n g gravity , the idea of the footp r i nt of the first man to set foot ther e , and the reason
207
for craters on its surface. This descript i o n was a direct result of the moon landing slide
show presented to Neo and her classmates, in which the footp r i nt s we re stressed, and Neo
has added to her knowled g e by re lating these facts on her PMM.
The last way in which Neo added to he r PMM was to note some additional facts
about the solar system, the Milky Way, comets and asteroids. In her interview she showed
some concep t of the size of the Milky Way:
Interv i e w e r : How many stars do you think there are in the Milky Way?
Neo: May b e about a billio n becau s e th ere are a lot of stars and some of
the stars born some other stars so it grows every time.
(swo4 2 p o s pm m 13-15 )
She was also able to explain what she thought was the differe n c e betwee n come ts and
aste r oi d s:
Neo: Co met s are li ke rocks . I think that it?s somet h i n g maybe like
when there was suppo s e d to be anoth e r plane t forme d , but it
wasn? t forme d so it create a co met. An d then asteroi d s it? s like
so me sort of like a fla me or someth i n g . And so somet i me s it just
goes into flash and leaves some tail or some kind of colour
espec i a l l y in the night.
(swo4 2 p o s pm m 19)
Her refer e nc e to the origi n of comet s indic at es that she has confl a t e d the conce pt s of
comet , asteroi d and meteo r into one idea, and descr i be d a meteo r trail in the sky, even
though she stated she has never actually seen one.
During the struct u r e d inter v i e w , Neo furthe r demons t r a t e d that her visit to the radio
teles c o p e did resul t in some limit e d chang e s to her conceptions, and she acquired some
new knowledge she did not apparently previo usly possess. Further knowledge that Neo
acquired with respect to sun wa s that the tempe r a t u r e on the sun?s surfa c e is five billio n
degr e e s . Wh il e this is inac c u r at e (the core is 15.5 milli o n degre e s , but the surfa c e is only
5800 degree s ) , her idea of the te mper a t u r e has m oved closer to the actual temper a t u r e tha n
her previous idea, which was only 360 degrees. However, from her pre-visi t and post-vis i t
respon s e s to questio n s , it appe ars she does not really have a scienti f i c concept i o n of
tempe r a t u r e , as she refers to water boili n g at ?30 or minus 30? (swo4 2p o s i n t 037). In her
post-v i s i t interv i e w , Neo also added the fact th at in the futur e the sun will expan d , contr a ct
and ?there will be no sun anymor e ? (swo42 p o si n t 153). This is a direct recall of discus s i o n
by the HartRAO educat o r s of what will happen to the Sun in the futur e . I regar d all these
ideas as being example s of additio n of concept s .
208
Neo?s concep t i o n of stars also differ e d after the visit to HartR A O . Prior to the visit ,
she unders t o o d the concep t that stars appear so tiny becaus e of their distanc e from the
Earth (although this was not probe d in detail), but she believed that most stars are smaller
than the sun: ?Stars are ? Maybe a little bi t ? A little bit smaller than the sun, because
the sun is one of the bigges t stars. ? (sw o42p r e i n t 131) However , after the visit she
appear e d to unders t a n d that star size varies: ?Stars are in diffe r e n t sizes , some of them are
small , some of them are big, some of them are med i u m and some of them are bigger than
the sun? (swo42 p o s i n t 077). She also reme mbe r e d from the visit that stars are spinning , a
fact she is unlikely to have encounte r e d pr eviously. Like the facts about the Sun, her
increase in knowledg e here is incremen t a l , and appears to be occurring by addition.
Neo?s underst a n d i n g of gravity showed little change across the vi sit to HartRAO as
she still belie v e d that there is no gravi t y in space, or on Jupiter or the sun. She did however
change her idea of gravity on the Moon. Whereas previously she believed that there is no
gravity on the Moon, and that people float there, after th e visit she stated ?t here ? s a little bit
on the moon about five to six of gravi t y ? (swo42 p o s i n t 109). At some point, probab l y
during the moon talk during the visit, she heard that gravit y on the moon is one sixth of
that on the Earth. She would al so have seen slides of peop le walking on the moon, and not
floatin g . I regard this knowled g e acquisi t i o n as a further example of addition: she has
acquired a new fact about gr avity, but her overall underst anding of gravity has not
increa s e d . Her idea of gravi t y was diffi c u l t to establi s h , but showed a private theory related
some ho w to heat, as when aske d about gravit y on th e sun, she state d ?warm air rises up?
(swo42preint 195). Although aspects of her understanding of gr avity with respect to the
Moon appeare d to change slightl y as a result of the visit to HartRAO, he r overall theory of
gravit y did not change . This is exempl i f i e d by her post-vis i t response to whether there is
gravity on the sun:
Neo: I think there is a bit of, no there is no gravity on the sun because
usuall y war m air rises up, but if there is so me gravit y there is
little becaus e war m air rises up so th at? s why there is no gravit y .
(swo 4 2 p o s i n t 121)
In HC theory David Anderso n refers to this type of knowl e dge construction as
recontextualisation , whereby ?a previous l y identifi e d concep t ? is modifie d ?witho u t
signif i c a nt clarif i c a t i o n of meaning ? due to the change d context (Anderso n et al. 2003 p
193). In this examp l e from Neo, she strug g l e s to explain why there is no gravity on the Sun
in terms of her own ?theory? of hot air rising, which she expres sed in her pre-visit
209
intervi e w . Essent i a l l y she has altered her idea s a little, but her underst a n d i n g of the concept
of gravity has not been clarifi e d .
Neo appear e d to show si mila r recont e x t u a l i s at i o n in her conce p t of a satel l i t e . Prior
to the visit , she refer r e d to a satell i t e as being out in space. After the visit, she concent r a t e d
her explana t i o n on the satelli t e dish, and struggl e d to explain what a radio telesc o p e does,
as follo w s :
Neo: The word satel l i t e it mean s that, all I know is satel l i t e , but I don?t
know the meani n g . Satell it e we have satell i t e dishe s like here in
South Afric a we have a sat ell i t e dish and it?s the only one in
Africa in South Afric a so we get inform a t i o n so some of the, what
they usual ly use it for it?s like may b e they turn it on and then
may b e it search for the star and may b e that star the astron o my
will study that star and tell us more about it, may b e that star is a
plane t or somet h i n g .
(swo 4 2 p o s i n t 093)
I regar d e d this as recon t e x t u al i sa t i o n as Neo was able to modi fy her explanation of a
satel l i t e dish in the context of the visit to Ha rtRA O . She had now seen a dish used in a new
conte x t , and had some idea of what the astro n ome r s were using it for. She was howev e r ,
but was unable to further cl arify her understanding of sate llite. When asked about the
shape of the dish, Neo was able to explain how the shape enables sounds to be captured.
Neo: It?s in that dish - s h a p e so that all the infor ma t i o n and all that
co mes in can get in becaus e if it? s straig h t like that nothin g will
co me in, all the sounds and every th i n g that they hear from space
will just float aroun d so that dish cause s the infor ma t i o n to come
in and not to float arou n d .
(swo 4 2 p o s i n t 097)
I regard e d this explan a t i o n as an exampl e of differe n t i a t i o n in which Neo was now able to
explain how the shape of the dish enabled it to capture ?informa t i o n ? and ?sounds? . Her
experi e n c e of using the whispe r dishes and the HartRAO educator ? s explanat i o n of how
they work may have contribu t e d to her explan a t i o n , but she did not re fer to these dishes
expli ci t l y in her accou nt .
Neo showed relative l y few instance s of non-cog n i t i ve knowle d g e constr u c t i o n as a
resul t of her visit to Hart R A O . In the affec t i v e doma i n , prior to her visit, she stated that
Natura l Scienc e and Techno l o g y were her favour i t e subject s at school, as one day she
?want[s ] to go to space and be like Mark Shuttl e w o r t h ? (swo4 2 p r e i nt 223). She also saw
the trip as being persona l l y re levan t (germa n e ) , in that ?I want to know more about our
world and what?s happenin g outside of our world? (swo42pr e i n t 027). Her particul a r
210
intere s t in the topic of astron o my was ?The pl anet s . What?s happen i n g on other planet s ,
becaus e there is no life on it? (swo42 p r e i nt 289). After the visit ?I told my mother that we
had a lot of fun and we learnt a lot? (swo42p o s i n t 169) and sh e relate d the use of rocket s
and the exper i e nc e of star rotat i o n to her mother. Neo showed no examples of conative
learni n g after her visit.
Neo went on the visit to HartRAO with above-a v e r a g e prior knowle d g e in Big
Ideas. Her pre-vi s i t vocab u l a r y and the id eas she de mo nst r a t e d on her PMM were
relativ e l y restri c t e d , bu t her underst a n d i n g of th e cause of day and night and the phases of
the moon were fairly sound. She was also able to provide a basic defi nition of gravity, and
had a limited but satisfa c t o r y concept i o n of what a star is. After the visit Neo?s ideas about
the sun, mo on stars, aster o i d s and comets ha d all changed and been elabora t e d on. Like
Botho, Neo improve d her basic scienc e litera c y , but did not demons t r a t e any change in her
cultura l scienc e liter acy (Shen, 1975) as a result of the visit.
Analysin g her learning us ing the human constructivi st categories of knowledge
constr u c t i o n, Neo?s freque n c i e s for each code are shown in Table 7.14. Like both
Nonkul u l e k o and Botho, from a Human Cons tructivist perspective Neo experienced
mainl y as addit i o n , in which she has accumul a t e d addit i o na l small piece s of infor ma t i o n
which she has fitte d in with her pre- e x i st i n g knowl e d g e . These incl u d e facts about the sun,
the stars, come ts and asteroi d s. In several cases she has di fferentiated this knowledge to
clarify her understa n d i n g of c oncep t s in a deeper way. For exampl e her unders t a n d i n g of
the size of the Sun and sunspo t s in relati o n to the Earth, her descript i o n of star sizes and
her explanation of why the Sun and Moon look th e same size in the sky all demon s t r a t e an
increase d understa n d i n g of size and scale. Also, as a direct result of the visi t, she
developed a new but flawed unde rs t a n d i n g of sunspo t s . These ex ample s of differe n t i a t i o n
sugge s t that she is at a differ e n t conce p t u a l level from both Nonkulul e k o and Botho, who
showed only one example of differe n t i a t i o n betwee n them.
Table 7.14 Frequency of Human Co nstructivism codes for Neo
Knowledge
construction
category
PrePMM &
Interview
PostPMM &
Interview
Pre
Interview
Post
Interview
Totals
A dd itio n n/a 7 n/a 7 14
Emergen c e n/a 0 n/a 0 0
Differen tiatio n n/a 3 n/a 3 6
Disc r imin a tio n n/a 0 n/a 0 0
Reco n tex tu a lisa tio n n/a 0 n/a 2 2
211
Knowledge
construction
category
PrePMM &
Interview
PostPMM &
Interview
Pre
Interview
Post
Interview
Totals
A ff e c tiv e 0 0 5 4 9
Cona tiv e 0 0 1 0 1
Totals 0 10 6 16 32
Like John (section 7.5.4) and Helen (sectio n 8.1.3), Neo appears to have had some
substantial prior experiences on which to base her additional knowledge. Yet she showed
no evidenc e of her recolle c t i n g previou s l y - k n o w n infor ma t i o n (eme r g e n c e ) as a result of
the visit . It is possi bl e that my post- vi s i t inter vi ew with her was not suffi c i e nt l y probi n g to
differe n t i a t e betwee n additi o n and emergen c e . However , Neo did use her prior knowled g e ,
but in two cases she recon t e x t ua l i se d it as a resul t of her visit exper i e n c e s rathe r than
expli ci t l y stati n g that the visit remi n d e d he r of things she already knew. How should a
scien ce centr e try to make Neo?s visit most benefi c i a l to her? While it was succe s sfu l in
promoti n g her knowled g e constru c t i o n in the fo r m of differ e n t i a t i o n , I sugges t that it
should explicitly aim to encourage emergent knowledge. Overt cues and remi nders of prior
knowl e d g e would stimu l a t e a studen t such as Ne o to relate the new knowle d g e she is being
prese n t e d with to her exist i n g conce p t u a l stru c t u r e s . This in turn is likel y to cause her
existing knowledg e structur e s to be further differentiated, a nd so promote more effective
learni n g .
7.5.4 Portrait of John (vho 16)
Table 7.15 Position of John on Big Ideas classification table
D 2.6-3.0 John
C 2.1-2.5
B 1.6-2.0
A 1.0-1.5
Post A B C D
Pre Mean 1.0-1.5 1.6-2.0 2.1-2.5 2.6-3.0
Table 7.16 John?s knowledge of Big Ideas
Grav ity Star
concep t
Sun
concep t
Size/
Scale
Sun
mov e men t
Moon
phase s
Parab o lic/
Satellite Dish
Aver ag e
pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 n/a 3 3 2.8 3.0
John was chosen as an example of a stude nt in the DD category. This means that,
accor di n g to my analys i s of his PMM and in tervi e w , he went on the trip to HartRA O
already very knowled g e a b l e a bout Big Ideas in astron o my I am investi g a t i n g , and could
not progres s any ?highe r ? in my classif i c a t i o n . Howeve r , I hope to demonstrate in this
212
portrait that John did still im prove his astronom y knowledg e , and was able to remember
previously-learned knowledge as a result of the visit to HartRA O . His pre- and post-v i s i t
mean scores are very simila r to the othe r 3 category DD students, although his post-visit
score is higher (their mea n is 2.7).
John is a white, 15-year - o l d grade 7 student atten d i n g Achie v e me n t Schoo l , a small
private school in a Western s uburb of Johannesburg. John live s in the same suburb as the
school at which he has attended for four year s, and comes from an Englis h - s p e a k i n g home.
John drew his PMM on 15 th October and was interviewed the following day, in a spare
office at the school. He then partici p a t e d in the class visit to HartRAO on 20 th Octob e r . I
visite d the Achie v e me n t Schoo l on 21 st Octobe r , and the whol e class compl e t e d their
?repea t PMM? silent l y in th e classr o o m, with me presen t . I re-inte r v i e w e d John on the
same day, so the whole process of data collect ion was less than one week in his case. John
is two to three years olde r than the other stude nt s in the class, and wa s not regarde d as an
acade mi c achie v e r at schoo l .
In his pre-vi s i t interv i e w, John was the onl y student who had the idea that the visit
to one of the study sites would be both educatio n a l and fun. The majority of students
visiti n g Harteb e e s t h o e k referr e d to the visit as being educ ational (88%, n=34), and only
refer r e d to fun in the post- v i s i t intervi e w . Af ter the visit, John was also the only studen t
who referr e d to the ?fun? aspect of the visit withou t being prompt e d . In the case of mos t
other studen t s , I specif i c a l l y asked them if th ey thought having fun was part of the visit,
after they had identif i e d the purpos e of the visit as being educa t i o n al . They all answe re d in
the affirma t i v e , that having fun was one of th e visit? s purpos e s . It appear e d from John?s
respons e s to questio n s that he was only motiv a t e d to learn things that to him were
interes t i n g and worthwh i l e , so from his point of view the ?fun? aspec t of the trip was very
impor t a n t .
John stated he was interes t e d in the t opic of astron o my and space, and found the
idea of space exploration fa scinating. He was aware that during August 2003 Mars was
going to be at its closest to Earth for a long time. He al so was aware that a comet or meteor
had been close to Earth in the past few years, and he attrib u t e d the recen t rash of films
about astero i d impact to that fact. John did not sound very enthusi a s t i c about school ,
disliking Afrikaans mos t , and enjoying sc ience technol o g y and geograp h y (now Human
and Social Scienc e s ) . As a career , John is intere s t e d in becomi n g a geolog i s t . For
recrea t i o n John said he likes to read non-fi c t i o n , and he stress e d that while he is happy to
213
watch ficti o n on telev i s i o n he doesn ? t like it in book s as he said ?I don? t like imag i n i n g , I?d
rather see it like on TV and stuff? (vho16p r e i nt 242). John thinks that primit i v e life such as
micro organ i s ms has be en found on Mars as well as comet s . He belie v e s that extra -
t e r re s t r i al life is possi bl e, on the basi s that the univ e r s e is so big, but he consi d e r e d that it is
unlik el y that other life is as intel l i g ent as human s , so the idea of alien s visit i n g the Earth is
implaus i b l e . John was fairly scathin g about the idea of astrology, hi s comme n t being ?No,
I don?t like that, I think that?s actual l y r ubbish? (vho16pr e i n t 278). However, he consider e d
himself religio u s , in that he does pray and believes in God, whom he considers created the
unive r s e .
In his use of astron o my words and terms John has both a broad and fairly deep
knowledge of astronomy as compa red with all other students in my study. The broad
nature is demonst r a t e d by his knowled g e of astrono my- r e l a t e d vocabu l a r y . On his pre-vis i t
PMM he used 36 astron o my - r e l a t e d words, which was the sec ond highest of all students in
the study (the highest being 37 words by a stude nt in the same school) , and substan t i a l l y
higher than the average for the study (20 wo rds) . While his post-v i s i t vocabu l a r y only
increas e d by 14 words, his total for both PMMs was 50, the highest of any student in the
study. Furthe r , John used seven words no other st udent used, such as dark matter, genesis
and quasar , as well as six words only one othe r studen t used, such as nebula and neutron
star. The signifi c a n c e of John?s substa n t i a l l y develope d vocabula r y is that it provid e s a
basis for him to articu l a t e his unders t a n d i n g of concep t s as shown in the interv i e ws , and
this is discus s e d in greate r detail in Ch apte r 9. John?s depth of knowle d g e was shown by
his abilit y to discus s comple x aspect s of astron o m y during his interv i e w s .
214
Figure 7.8 John?s pre-visit PMM
J o h n ? s initia l person a l meanin g map (Figur e 7.8 and Append i x J) was fairly extens i v e , but
consis t e d mainly of astron o my - r e l a t e d vocabulary and did not expand much on the words
he listed. During the interview however, he de mon s t r a t e d knowle d g e of star forma t i o n in
nebulas, and explanat i o n s for quasars, black hole s and neutron stars. He indicated that this
knowle d g e was gained from readin g his fath er? s Nation a l Geogra p h i c magazi n e , and
looking up the meaning of quasar in a dictionary. He did a pr oject on black holes at school
the previous year, and suggested that st ars could possibly form within them. His
descri p t i o n of star format i on, while it referred to ?gases and the nuclear reactions and
certai n differ e n t gases reacti n g with each ot her? (vho16prepmm 07), did not relate this to
any role played by gravity in the process . When questioned about the planets he had
writte n down, he listed facts about Jupite r , Saturn, Venus and Mercury . He had a fairly
detaile d knowled g e of Mars, a nd again referred to National Ge ographic as a sour ce of his
infor ma t i o n .
In the remain d e r of his interv i e w his know le d g e of Big Ideas was substa n t i a l when
compar e d to other studen t s . For exampl e , when question e d on the differen c e between the
Sun and the stars many students re fe r to visi bl e diffe r e nc e s , such as size, visibili t y by day
and night, brightne s s and distance . John however , referr e d to Sun and stars being basica l l y
215
the same, but he additio n a l l y re ferr e d to nuclear reacti o n s causing them to ?burn? . His
conception of the Sun was classifi ed as being at level 3, one of only 8 students in the study
(24%) who were able to describe the Sun in relat i v e l y sophi s t i c a t e d terms prior to the visit .
John however was not scien tifically correct in all his pre-visit knowledge, for
examp l e he (like many other stud en t s ) confus e d the term revolv e with rotate . In his pre-
visit interview, when asked why the Sun move s across the sky every day, he stated that
?Becau s e we are revolv i n g around , no we , the Earth revolv e s around the Sun?
(vho16p r e i n t 082). As soon as he was presented with th e model Earth and Sun, he
demons t r a t e d correc t l y that the Sun moving acr oss the sky was due to the Earth ?turni n g ?
(rotat i n g ) , rather than the re volut i o n of the Earth around th e Sun. The introduction of a
three dime nsio n a l mode l appeared to be the stimulus for John to be able to correct his
initi a l incor r e c t respo n s e to th e questio n (level 2). Several other stude n t s in the study
showe d this devel o p me n t in thei r thin k i n g as a resul t of the use of a model in the intervi e w ,
and the issue is discuss e d further in Chapter 9.
Anothe r mis c on c e p t i o n John de mons t r a t e d was that of the cause of the phases of
the moon. In his pre-vi s i t inter v iew he referred to the Earth?s shadow as being responsible
for the change in moon shape over a month, and as he talke d he also refer r e d to the phase s
being caused by the Sun shining on the moon as it orbits Earth. As he spoke during his
explan a t i o n he decide d that the Earth? s sha dow was only involve d in lunar eclipse s . Like
his explan a t i o n of the Sun?s move m e n t acr oss the sky, John changed his reason for the
phenomenon as his account progressed (eve n though there was no model of the Moon
involved). Unfortunately, I di dn?t question him about the m oon phases in his post-visit
inter v i e w .
John explained in his pre-visi t intervi e w that a satelli t e is a body orbiting another in
space, and that it can be artific i a l or natural . He understood that a sa tellite dish points to a
satell i t e in space, and that the shape of the di sh is ?proba b l y the most effici e n t shape to
receiv e radio signal s ? (vho16 p r e i n t 142). After the visit, John expand e d upon his previo u s
knowledg e , for example ?the bigger the dish the further the dist ance can be so I think to
pick up radio waves? (vho16po s i n t 079). He also was the only student to explain how the
Earth is rotat i n g at the same speed that the satelli t e moves around the Earth, so that a dish
can remai n in a fixed posit i o n (a geost a t i o n a r y orbit) . His underst a n d i n g of size and scale
was also classif i e d at level 3.
216
John?s underst a n d i n g of grav ity was extensiv e before the visit to HartRAO.
Withou t any prompt i n g , he just wrote the word gravity in his pre-visit PMM, but did not
elabora t e on it. Howeve r, he explai ne d in his interv i e w that gravit y is a pullin g force, and,
even before he was questi o n e d about the cause of gravit y , he clarif i e d that the pulling force
was relate d to the mass of the planet . He th eref o r e could explai n that gravit y on the moon
would be much less than that of Earth, thus:
John : I know it?s one- s i x t h of Eart h ? s , it?s obv i o u s ly not, you obvi ou s ly
coul d jump furth e r and thing s like that.
(vho 16 p r e i n t 178)
He could also explain that gr avi t y on Jupite r would be much higher than that of Earth (or
the other planet s ) due to Jupite r ? s great size. John was the only studen t in the sample who,
in addition to his knowledge of gravity, could identify that the Eart h?s gravity caused the
moon to remain in orbit about the Earth, and that the moon ?s gravity caused tides on the
Earth. Some studen t s (mostl y from John?s school , suggesting that had learnt this from the
teacher) knew some of the effects of gravit y, but John was the only one who prior to the
visit had such an extensi v e knowled g e .
Figure 7.9 John?s post-visit PMM
J o h n ? s pre-vis i t PMM was so full of words that in his post-visit PMM he used the reverse
side of the sheet to make sever a l addit i o n s (Figure 7.9 and Appendi x J). Six of these were
217
additi o n a l facts about the planet s Jupit e r , Eart h, Mars Venus Saturn and Mercury that he
didn?t write on the pre-vis i t PMM. However , mo st of these new facts were not things he
had learnt at HartRAO, as he did discuss some of them in his pre-vi s i t inter v i e w . The other
addition s he made to his PMM were detail s about differe n t type s of stars and other
cosmol o g i c a l phenome n a : red giants , ?wite dwa rfs?, ?quasars?, ?nubul as? and black holes.
He wrote a senten c e about each one, and they were furthe r discus s e d in his interv i e w .
What came out in the inter vi e w was that he alrea d y knew quite a lot about these
phenome n a , and that the visit had remi nde d him of his pre-ex i s t i n g knowledge. In the
Human Const r u ct i vi s t frame w o r k this is an example of emergenc e , which John showed
more extensively than any other student in th e study. However, in some cases he combined
his prior knowled g e with what he knew alread y and developed his knowl edg e still further.
For exampl e , prior to the visit John alread y kne w about white dwarf stars, which he listed
on his PMM but did not elabor a t e on during the pre-visi t intervie w , although he was asked
about them. Howeve r , in his post visit PMM and interview John elab or a t e d on them as
being dead stars and the fact th at they spin fast e r than bigger star s . This elabo ra t i o n was a
result of the refere n c e made to them by the educator at HartRAO wh ich John referr e d to in
his interview. At HartRAO stude nts were not only told about livin g and dead stars but also
had the experie n c e of spinnin g like a star on a tu rnt a b l e . For the major i t y of stude nt s , this
was merely ?fun? ? it was one of the aspects of the trip that thr ee stude n t s speci f i c a l l y
referred to as being enjoyabl e ? but John could relate his prior knowledge of dwarf stars as
being just ?smal l ? to the idea that small , dead stars spin faste r than large r , livin g star s . He
was then able to elabor a t e on this in hi s post-visit PMM and in terview, providing an
exampl e of differ e n t i a t i o n in his unders t a n d i n g of stars.
In his post-v i s i t interv i e w , John elabor a t e d on three aspect s of gravity . First he
suggest e d that gravity on the Sun would be ve ry high, and referre d to the scales used at
HartR A O that indi c at e a pers on?s weight on a number of di fferent planets (but not the
Sun):
John : Phoo o ? don? t reme mb e r the exac t amo u n t of grav i ty , but it?s
way stronge r than the Earth? s becaus e if you check your scales
there? s around thousa n d s of scale s to the Sun so that mu st be
pulli n g of gravi ty .
(vho 16 p o s i n t 099)
218
Second, when questio n e d on how the Earth?s gr avit y affect s the moon, John referre d to
Newton (?the guy with the apple?) and how he postula t e d the way in which the moon
orbitin g the Earth is held in place yet does not fall towards the Earth.
John: But as he said the gravi ty of the Earth keeps on going fast I?ve
forgo t t e n I? m try in g to think how to expla i n it ja. The gravi ty of
the Earth just keeps on the mass or obvio u s ly the apple is going to
fall to the groun d so the gravi t y of the Earth . And let? s say the
moon has falle n and by the time the moon has got so far, where it
would have falle d the Earth has alrea d y rotat e d undern e a t h it so
then it just carri e s on.
(vho16 p o s i n t 107)
John was the only studen t in the study to be able to describ e the concept of freefal l . Again,
I consi d e r that this is anoth e r examp l e of emerg e n c e , where b y John is descr i b i n g the Earth -
moon relationship which he has learnt about at some point prior to the visit to HartRAO,
but which the conside r a t i o n of gravi t y durin g the visit a nd my ques tioning about his
understa n d i n g of gravity has enc oura g e d him to elabora t e on.
Thirdl y , John was the only studen t who unders tood that everything has gravity, even a
human being. In his post-v i s i t intervie w he stated:
Inter v i e w e r : So what, does every t h in g ha ve gravi ty or is it just moons and
plan e t s and Suns ?
John: Every th i n g has gravi t y .
Inte r v i e w e r : So have you got grav i ty ?
John: Proba b ly a reall y , really minut e amoun t , but ja.
(vho 16 p o s i n t 121- 12 7 )
I did not probe where this idea came from, so it is not possi b l e to tell whet h e r it was prior
knowl e d g e (more likel y I think) or whethe r it developed during the visit or questioning.
Regard i n g the Sun?s mo veme n t across the sky, John follow e d a train of though t simila r to
the one he showed in his pre-vis i t intervi e w , where he starte d with the idea that the Earth
orbiting the Sun causes the apparent move me n t , but change d his explana t i o n as he
progre s s e d :
Inter v i e w e r : And why does the sun move across the sky every d ay ? What? s
goi n g on?
John: Beca u s e the Sun is going arou n d , I mean the plane t is going
arou n d the Sun.
Inter v i e w e r : Okay and so the night and day is the plan e t going aroun d the Sun.
John: Yes and the plane t turns .
Interv i e w e r : Okay .
219
John: No, the nigh t and day is the plane t turni ng and the years is the
plan e t going arou n d the Sun.
(vho 16 p o s i n t 041- 05 5 )
It seems that during the answer i n g of the quest i o n, once the inter vi e w e r repea t s the answe r ,
John reassesses his idea, and changes it to the correc t one, in a simila r way that he did in
the pre-vis i t intervi e w . In Chapter 9 I suggest that the use of intervi e w and clarification by
the inter vi ew e r of what the stude n t has said, al lows studen t s to consid e r their answer and in
some cases make chang e s to it.
So what did John learn on th is visit to HartRAO? Ta ble 7.17 provides a summary
of his learning from the human constructivist frame work. As we have seen, prior to the
visit he was probably the most knowled g e a b l e student in the study. Yet, according to his
PMMs and inter v i e w s , the visit did still enabl e hi m to expan d furth e r on his pre-v i s i t
explan a t i o n s . Accord i n g to our definit i on of learning, this shows that John did learn during
the visit, but for hi m, the learni n g was not so much an increa s e in factua l knowle d g e
(addit i o n ) , but more an expans ion or reorganisation of his prior knowl e d g e . Using Braun d
and Reiss?s defini t i o n of lear ning (2004), John deepened hi s awaren e s s and ideas, and
reflec t e d on his visit in term s of his prior knowledge. In hu ma n construc t i v i s t terms John
only added five new pieces of knowledge to his repert o i r e of facts, but he referre d to 12
exampl e s of where the visit remi nd e d him of his prior knowledge, which he then expanded
on. In his post-visit interview, John twice explicitly stated that the visi t ?remin d e d ? him of
things he already knew, but hadn?t spoken of durin g the pre-v i s i t inte rv i e w . Accord i n g to
Falk and Dierking (1997, 2000), learn i n g in museums and scienc e centres is not only about
the acquisi t i o n of new knowled g e , skills and va lues, but often acts as a prompt for
previou sl y - l e a r n e d facts, which are reinfor c e d by the visit . Accor d i n g to Galla g h er (in Falk
and Dierkin g 2000) the physica l contex t of th e visit is respon s i b l e for the remi nd e r of
previou s l y - l e a r n e d informa t i o n . This appears to be what happen e d to John; he stated that
the visit remin d e d him of facts a bout stars and related details:
John: But some of the thing s chang e d like aroun d (inau d i b le ) becau s e I
reme mb e r ag es ago I read about white dwarf s and all that stuff
and black holes for a projec t . Now I forgot about those quite a
while ago so now I knew that stuff .
(vho 16 p o s i n t 139)
This also confor ms to the constr u c t i v i s t position on the re-const r uction of knowledge as
me mori e s are create d , recon s t r u c t e d and recombi n e d (Rosch e l l e 1995) . John, as the studen t
who visite d HartRA O with apparen t l y the gr eat e s t amoun t of prio r knowledge, was also
220
the studen t who drew on this prior knowle d g e to context u a l i s e what he experie n c e d at the
visit or s ? cent r e and radio teles c o pe . In Piage t i an terms John was assimilating knowle d g e :
inter p r e t i n g the visit exper i e n c e on the basis of his previou s unders t a n d i n g , much of it not
reme mbe r e d until the visit stimu l a t e d the me mo ri e s . Accor di n g to Piaget , John was fitting
new sense impres s i o n s into a pre-exi s t i n g cognit i v e struct u r e , ?build i n g additi o na l
unders t a n d i n g and reinfor c i n g known th ings ? (Falk &Dierk i n g 2000, p. 29).
Table 7.17 Frequency of Human Co nstructivism codes for John
Knowledge
construction
category
PrePMM &
Interview
PostPMM &
Interview
Pre
Interview
Post
Interview
Totals
A dd itio n n/a 3 n/a 2 5
Emer g e n c e 3* 7 n/a 2 12
Diff er en tiatio n n/a 1 n/a 2 3
Disc r imin a tio n n/a 0 n/a 0 0
Reco n tex tu a lisa tio n n/a 0 n/a 0 0
Affe c tiv e 1 0 6 3 10
Cona tiv e 0 1 0 0 1
Totals 4 12 6 9 31
* in his pre-vis i t intervi e w John referre d to how he had used books and other resource s in
his accumul a t i o n of knowle d g e about astron o m y , and the quest i o n i n g remi n d e d him of
this.
But John also needed the approp r i a t e conte x t in which to recall his previo u s me mori e s , and
the context of HartRAO was appropri a t e for John?s emergent knowledge to be expressed.
Falk and Dierkin g sugges t that context whic h mental l y cues one individ u a l ? s me mori e s
might not promp t anoth e r perso n , as conte x t is ?always relativ e to the person? (Falk &
Dierki n g , 2000 p. 32). It would follow that scie nc e centr e s will there f o r e promo t e emerg e nt
learn i n g mai nl y in those peopl e who have e nough prior knowle d g e for the context u a l cues
to have some effect.
In conce p t ua l chang e terms , John showe d little affect i v e learni ng after the visit,
with most of the affec t i v e categ or i e s evide n t in his pre- vi s i t inter v i ew . Simil a r l y , he
showe d only one exa mp l e of conat i v e learn i n g , where he refer r e d to ?goin g on the Inter n e t ?
and looki n g at the Hubbl e teles c o p e photo g r a p h s of galax i e s . All three other stude n t s in the
DD category showed a greater de gree of affectiv e le arning than John. They all expressed
great inter e s t in astron o m y and had strong e r feelings regarding what they enjoyed about
the visit than John. In this respec t theref o r e , John is unusual : he was excepti o n a l l y clear
when it came to his emergent learning, but he showed less strong emo tions about what he
had learnt .
221
In terms of his extens i v e background knowledge, John could be said to be already
scient i f i c a l l y liter a t e (in astron o my ) befor e his visit , thoug h he did impro v e this sligh t l y ?
?small stuff? in his own words. There? s no ev iden c e from his post-v i si t PMM or inter v i ew
that he chang e d his cultu ra l scien t i fi c liter ac y to any exten t ; agai n , this was alrea d y
subst a n t i al prior to the visit .
7.6 Discussion
This chapte r has descri b e d four studen t s in some det ail, from Nonkululeko who
demon s t r a t e d very littl e prior knowledge of Big Ideas in as tro n o my , to John who displa y e d
very substant i a l knowledg e . Alt hough categorised as being at di fferent levels, each student
descri be d showed little change in their ow n knowle d g e of Big Ideas after their visit,
sugge s t i n g that they hadn?t learn t much in th e traditio n a l sense of havin g assimi l a t e d facts
about Big Ideas such as gravity and the Sun. With the except i o n of Nonkul u l e k o , the
studen t s appear e d to have some person a l intere st in astronomy, and th e i r me mo r i e s of the
visit relat e d to these inter e st s . For examp l e Botho was inter e st e d in stars and Neo in
planets . There are however , differe n c e s between the students . Both Nonkulul e k o and
Botho had relativ e l y little prior knowle d g e on which to build addit i o n a l compr e h e n s i o n of
Big Ideas, and their learn i n g consi st e d mainl y of additi o n , with mini ma l other cogni t i ve
categories of learning. I would s uggest that their very lack of prior knowledge in the area
of astron o m y meant that they were only able to const r u c t addit i o na l incre me n t a l facts in
their cognit i v e knowle d g e fra mew o r k . The same students however, were both able to
discuss enjoya b l e aspect s of the trip, although Nonkulul e k o ? s inter e s t in the visit appeared
to be minima l . In contra s t , given that Botho entered and won a nationa l astrono my
compe t i t i o n after the visit , it would appea r that stude n t s ? intere s t is not neces s a ri l y relat e d
to academi c learni n g abili t y .
Neo and John also showed some simila r f eatur e s of learni n g . With their greate r
prior knowled g e than Nonkulu l e k o and Botho, both were able to build on what they
already knew to not only add to their knowle d g e struct u r e but to differe n t i a t e it. Neo
differe n t i a t e d severa l areas of her knowled g e , in clud i n g the Sun, stars and the satelli t e dish,
whereas John showed differentiation in his understanding of gravity and stars. Neo
howeve r differ s from John in that she mainly acquir e d knowle d g e by additi o n , wherea s he
drew on his very extensive previous readi n g about astron o my and found that what was
presented at HartRAO reminded hi m of what he already knew, a nd extended it. In terms of
222
affectiv e and conativ e learnin g , Neo and John showed very sim ila r profil e s afte r the visit,
althou g h Neo was mor e express i v e in terms of enjoyin g the experi e n c e at the centre .
Neithe r of them appear e d to have been motiv a t e d to act on what they had learnt after
retur ni n g fro m the visit , but it is possi b l e that additio n a l data collect i o n might have
detect e d this.
In contras t to the student s descri b e d , w ho showe d no appar e n t change in their
knowle d g e of Big Ideas after their visit, Chapter 8 desc ribe s three students who all
demonst r a t e d change in their Big Ideas concep t s .
223
Chapter 8
8 How individual students learnt about astronomy (2)
This chapter describes the learning s hown by three students who visited the
Johannesburg Planetarium and the Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy
Observatory. Each of these students showed different levels of prior
knowledge, and the portraits show how th ey improved their knowledge of Big
Ideas as well as other aspects of astronomy.
8.1 Introduction
T h i s chapt er prese nt s portr ai t s of three stude n t s who all lie in the blue part of the
classif i c a t i o n scheme based on their Bi g Idea knowled g e (Table 7.1), and who all
improv e d their mean ?score ? after the visit compa r e d with their initi a l ideas . Chapt e r 7
showed that even when student s did not apparently change their knowledge of Big Ideas,
they were able to demo nst r a t e other types of learni n g as a result of their scien c e centr e
experi e n c e . Such other types of learni n g might norma l l y be ?hidde n ? if the studen t s are
assessed only by traditional met ho d s such as tests or questio n n a i r e s of astrono my conten t .
This chapt er shows that chang e s both in knowledge of Big Ideas and in other more
indivi d u a l ways can occur in so me stud e n t s . As all thre e stude n t s in this chap t er chan g e d
their knowl e d g e of Big Ideas , I have inclu d e d an addit i o na l table in each portr a i t which
summa r i s e s these change s .
8.1.1 Portrait of Fatima (scf15)
Table 8.1 Position of Fatima on Big Ideas classification table
D 2.6-3.0
C 2.1-2.5
B 1.6-2.0 Fatima
A 1.0-1.5
Post A B C D
Pre Mean 1.0-1.5 1.6-2.0 2.1-2.5 2.6-3.0
Table 8.2 Fatima?s knowledge of Big Ideas
Solar
Syste m
Star
concep t
Sun
concep t
Size/
Scale
Sun
mov e men t
Moon
phase s
Aver ag e
pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post
2 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 1.5 2.0
224
Fatima was chose n as an examp l e of a stude n t in the AB categ o r y . Accor d i n g to my
analysi s of her PMM and interv i ew , she went on the trip to the Plane t a ri u m with littl e
knowl e d g e about Big Ideas in astron o my and yet increa s e d her knowle d g e across nearly
two categor i e s : her average Big Ideas knowle d g e level increa s e d by 0.5, fr om 1.5 to 2.0, on
the borders of A and C. Category AB contains 8 student s , and it was difficult selecting one
studen t to repres e n t the whole group. I sele cte d Fatima on the basis that she showed
substa n t i a l change (only Tlotlo in her categor y showed great e r change with an avera g e
knowl e d g e incre a se of 0.6) and that she was initi a l l y not ignorant about astron o my , but
that she held a numbe r of misco n c e p t i o n s a bout the solar system and space, many of which
change d after the visit.
Fatima is a 14-year-old ?coloured? 1 5 grade 8 student and attends Lourdes Girls
School , a private school in the western suburb s of Johanne s b u r g . Fatima lives in a suburb
in the western part of Johann e s b u r g , appro x i ma t e l y 10km from the school, and comes fr om
an Afrika a ns - s p e a ki n g famil y . Fatima drew her PMM on 9 th Octob er and was inter vi e w ed
on 13 th October , the day before she visited the Johann e s b u r g Planet a r i u m as part of the
class visit. On 16 th October , all the student s who had been on the field trip did their repeat
PMM during school time and I re-int e r v i e w e d Fatima on the same da y. Acade mi c a l l y ,
Fatima is a very high achiev e r , gettin g 85% in her year mark for all subjec t s in 2003, and it
is inter e s t i ng that this high mark was not reflect e d in her knowle dge of Big Ideas in
astron o my prior to her visit to the planet a r i u m.
When Fatima was asked whethe r she was looki ng forwar d to the vi sit , she indic a t e d
in the affirmat i v e , but did not appear particul a r l y excite d about the prospe c t of it. For her it
seemed to be just a visi t the class was going on. She had heard the plan et Mars in the news
recent l y ?tha t we would be ab le to see it like now and th en? (scf15 p r e i n t 134), but she
hadn? t attempt e d to look for it herse l f. She al so reme mb e r e d Mark Shuttl e w o r t h going into
space and how ?that looke d like reall y cool? (scf1 5 p r e i nt 134).
Fatima said that the part of school she liked was having her fr iends around her and
learnin g about some subjects, accounting (which she enjoyed) and history (which she
found easy) being her favour i t e s . Conver s e l y she found biology, geography and science
hard and not enjoya b l e . Her recrea t i o n a l activ i t i e s includ e gymnas t i c s and readin g fictio n .
15 Under the former aparth eid syste m coloured meant a pe rso n of mixe d race . The designatio n is used here to
ind icate the commu n ity fro m which the studen t comes.
225
She thoug h t that there mi ght be life elsew h e r e in the solar syste m, such as on Mars, but did
not belie v e in life elsew he r e in the unive r s e , a nd regarded the idea of aliens as ?stupid? . She
knew that astrolo g y is ?like how the stars a nd moon and the planets influe n c e their lives?
(scf15 p r e i n t 240), and had some belief in it. As a Muslim she explai n e d how import a n t
observations of the Moon are in working out the time for fastin g (Ramad a n ) , and stated
that she believe s Allah created everyth i n g .
In her use of astron o my words and term s Fatima?s prior knowledge of astronomy
was above-a v e r a g e for the student s in the st udy. Her use of astronomy-related words was
26 in her pre-vi s i t PMM (study avera g e was 20, school averag e 21), her post-v i s i t
vocabu l a r y rose by 7, the same as the average of her school (7.6) a nd the study (7.2). She
was one of only three students who used the wo rd s ?axi s ? , ?mete o r o i d ? and ?crat er ? , and the
only student to use the terms ?heaven l y body? and ?tides? on her PMM. Her pre-visit
perso n a l meani n g map (Figur e 8.1 and Append i x J) was not extens i v e , but showed sever a l
basic facts. She listed the nine planet s and stat e d that they rotat e on their axes and revol v e
aroun d the Sun. She furth e r liste d what you find in space, includ i n g planet s , come ts and
galaxies. She stated that star s are balls of burnin g gas, th at they form patte r n s calle d
constellation and they influence your life. She believed that the biggest star is the Sun.
Unlike any of the other studen t s she stated th at the Moon has an influence on the tides on
Earth . When quest i o n e d furth e r about this, she sa id that she learn t in geogr a p h y that ?some
force s ?cent r i f u g a l force s , some t h i n g like th at? (scf15 p r e p m m 11) influen c e tides in the
oceans. She could clearly explain the diffe r e n c e betwe e n astro n o my and astrol o gy , and
knew that the former ?deal more with scient i f i c thing s ? while the latte r ?are more on the
life? (scf15p r e p m m 31). She could state a fe w facts about the planets and knew that
galaxies are ?clusters of st ars? (scf15 p r e p m m 59) and that we ?live on? the Milky Way
galaxy , a spiral . This PMM and her elabor a t i o n in the interv i e w shows that Fatima had
clear l y learn t quite a lot a bout basic astron o m y , appare n t l y mainly from her school
geography lessons, which she professed to find hard.
226
Figure 8.1 Fatima?s PMM (pre- and post-visit)
In her pre-visit structured inter v i ew Fatima appea r e d to have a number of
misconceptions about aspects of astronomy. Fi rst, although she knew about stars and the
names of some conste l l a t i o n s , she was unawar e that planets are visible in the night sky.
Second , she referr e d to the Earth ?rotat i n g ar ound the Sun? (scf15 p r e i n t 086) as the reason
for night and day. Interes t i n g l y, Fatima was the only student to corre ct l y stat e on her PMM
that planets ?revolv e around the sun? and ?rotate on their own axes? (scf15pre 27 & 28).
However, when asked to explain why the S un moves across the sky every day, she referre d
to the Earth ?rotat i n g ? or ?moving ? around the Sun as being the reason. She further
demons t r a t e d the Earth orbiti n g the Sun using the model, to explain the Sun?s appare n t
move me n t daily across the sky. Third, althou g h she correct l y referre d to stars as being
burnin g balls of gas, she then added (in respons e to ?what are stars??) ?And then, I think, I
think because of the moon?s reflect i o n ? ? (s cf15preint 114) indicati ng quite na?ve thinking
about the stars as somehow reflecting light from the Moon. Fourthly, in terms of scale, she
had an idea that it would take only about 2 days for a spac es h i p to reach the neares t star
beyon d the solar syste m. The real ity is that you can reach the Moon in about 2 days, but it
227
would take thousan d s of years to reach the ne arest star. She also believed that stars are
?smalle r than ?.the Moon? (scf15p r e i n t 118).
Afte r her visit to the plane t a ri u m, Fati ma added sever a l phras e s to her PMM, some
of which she elabo r at e d in her intervi e w , inclu di n g the follow i n g : She corre ct l y state d the
length of rotati o n of the Earth being 24 hour s, and revolu t i o n around the Sun being 365?
days. She referr e d to ?lots of ultra Plutos ? (scf15 p o s 15), which she explai n e d as ?there
was like mo re Plutos that they found, like, othe r planet s ?.. I think in the solar system as
well? (scf15p o s p m m 039). She also sugge s t e d that astero i d s might be the 10 th plane t which
disint e g r a t e d . She discus s e d the fact that Mars ? soil is being teste d to see wheth er it is
?suita b l e for growin g crops becaus e they want to take some peopl e up into Mars?
(scf15pospmm 053). When asked further about this , she descri b e d a probe sent to Mars as
being ?what looked like a skateboa r d that went into the rock? (scf15pospmm 057),
referr i n g to the planeta r i u m photograph of the NASA Mars vehi cle sent in the 1990s. She
gave the names of the two close s t stars to our solar syste m ? Proxima Centauri and Alpha
Centauri ? and stated that it will take 4000 years 1 6 to reach the nearest one. She
disting u i s h e d between the inne r rocky planets and the outer gaseous ones (althoug h Pluto
is the odd one out), and said a body qualifies as a planet if it has a moon orbiting it. She
referred to meteorit e s as shooting stars, and explained that it is not actually a star but a
meteor which burns in the Earth?s atmosphe r e . She also referr e d the ?South Africa n
Largest Telescop e ? as being built, which she fo und inter e st i ng . Sever al of these facts show
that Fatima developed a greater degree of cult ura l scient i f i c litera c y (Shen, 1975) in that
the visit stimu l a t e d her inter e s t in and appr eci a t i o n of the achieve me n t s of science .
In her struc t u r e d inter v i e w Fatima also elabor ated on or changed a number of her pre-visit
ideas (Table 8.3).
Table 8.3 Ways in which Fatima ch anged her ideas about concepts
Concept Pre-visit idea Post-visit idea
P l a n e t s visibl e
in night sky
Plane t s not visib l e Venus and Mars visib l e , appea r i n g
like stars
Const e l l a t i o n
names
Orion , South e r n Cross Orion , South e r n Cross , Sagit t a r i u s ,
Libra
Solar sy ste m Sun with the nine planet s revol v i n g ; Plane t s ; elabo r a t e d on astero i d s
16 This figure is correct on ly if the space ship used can trav el 20 times faster than our curren t ones, as
explained by the planetar iu m presenter .
228
Concept Pre-visit idea Post-visit idea
o t h e r heave n l y bodie s : the moon,
co met s , aster o i d s , met eo r o i d s ,
meteo r s . Shape unsur e .
and moon s ; also incl u d e d star s .
Shape unsur e .
The Sun A star, gives heat and light. Made
of gases.
A ball of burni n g gas, a star and
it?s made up of hy dro g e n and
heliu m.
Sun mov e me n t
across sky
Becau s e Eart h moves arou n d the
Sun.
Accep t e d scie n t i f i c expla n a t i o n of
Earth rotat i o n
Stars Balls of burnin g gas and the
Moon? s refle c t i o n . Small e r than the
Moon .
As pre-vi s i t , excep t no refere n c e to
Moon? s refl e c t i o n .
Ti me to reach
nearest st ar
2 day s 4000 year s
Moon phase s Unsur e of reaso n for ph ases Still unsure of reason for phases
L i k e Helen from the same school , Fatima appear e d to have increa s e d her knowle d g e about
seve r al conce p t s as a resul t of the visit . Most of this increas e appears to be her abili t y to
reme mbe r facts she was told at the planet a r ium. Analysing her learning using the human
const r u c t i vi st frame w o r k , Fatima ? s frequ e n c i e s for each code (Table 8.4) show that the
main HC categor y of learnin g that Fatima de m ons tr a t e d was that of addition , as follows:
Whereas previous l y she had not known that planets are visible in the night sky,
after the visit she state d that Venus and Mars ar e visib l e , and that they look ?like stars ? . In
her post-visit PMM she referred to the ?ultra Pl uto s ? which she clarifi e d as being additional
Pluto-l i k e planets found by astrono m e r s . A furthe r fact about planet s was her referen c e to
possible crops on Mars and the idea that peopl e might be taken to Mars. As all of these
piece s of infor ma t i o n featu r e d in the plane t a r i u m show, I regard these as new facts that she
added to her existing knowledge as a direct result of the visit to the planet a ri u m.
Her knowle d g e of facts about the Sun increa s e d a little. In her pre-visit interview
she had referr e d to the Sun being a star, givin g off light and heat, and made of gases, but
she didn?t know which ones. On probing, she c ould also not explain how the Sun gives off
light and heat. After the visit, Fatima used the phrase ?ball of burning gas? (scf15p o s i n t
053), and named the gases as helium and hydrog e n . Where a s she used the phrase ?ball of
burning gas? for stars prior to he r visit, she did not use it to describe the Sun. After the visit
she used the expres s i o n to refer to the sun as we ll. I consi de r that these addit i o na l facts that
Fatima acqui r e d about the Sun are example s of the HC categor y ?a ddition?, in th at they are
small additi o n a l facts about a concep t sh e already has some knowledge of. She
229
reme mbe r e d from the plane t a r i u m that it w ould take 4000 years in the fastest possible
spaces h i p we could build to reach the nearest st ar. She had previousl y stated that it would
take 2 days to reach this star, and althou g h sh e now reme mb e r e d the new fact, she gave no
other indicati o n that her unders tanding of the concept of the enormous scale of the solar
system had increa s e d . In HC terms, she wa s adding a fact to he r knowledge, and showed
no sign of knowledg e restruct u r i n g . Finally, in her post-vis i t P MM she noted the fact that
?Sout h Afric a is makin g a teles c o p e calle d ?S ALT? South African Largest Telescop e ? , and
she confirm e d in the intervi e w that this was new knowled g e .
Table 8.4 Frequency of Human Cons tructivism codes for Fatima
Knowledge
Construction category
PrePMM + Int PostPMM +
Int
Pre Int Post
Int
TOTALS:
A dd itio n n/a 10 n/a 4 14
Emerg e n c e n/a 1 n/a 1 2
Diff er en tiatio n n/a 0 n/a 1 0
Disc r imin a tio n n/a 1 n/a 1 2
Reco n tex tu a lisa tio n n/a 0 n/a 0 0
Affe c tiv e 0 0 4 4 8
Cona tiv e 0 0 1 0 1
TOTA L S : 0 1 5 8 27
T a b l e 8.4 also shows that Fatima demons t r a t e d 2 example s of the HC categor y
emerg e n c e : In one respe c t , Fatima made a s ubsta n t i a l shift in her knowle d g e , and that was
her explanat i o n for why the Sun moves across th e sky ever day. In her pre-vis i t interv i e w ,
Fatima explai n e d the Sun?s appare n t move me n t as being due to the Earth ?moving around
the sun?. When handed the model Sun and Ea rth, Fatima both confirme d and confused her
initia l explan a t i o n by referr i n g to the Earth ?rotat i n g around th e sun?, but she demon s t r a t e d
the Earth? s orbit around the S un while doing this, sugges t i n g she was confus i n g the term
revolv e and rotate . Howeve r , in her post-v i s i t inter v i e w Fatima refe r r e d only to the Earth
rotat i n g (this time she demon s t r a t e d it spinni ng on its axis), and in her PMM she described
the ?Earth takes 24 hours to do a complet e rotation [therefore] a da y?. She further wrote
?Earth takes 365? days 4 a revolution round the sun [therefore] year? (scf15pos 9 & 16).
Neithe r of these piece s of infor ma t i o n were descr i b e d in the plane t a r i um show, and the
present e r never used the words rotate, rotati o n , revolve or revolut i o n . Unfortu n a t e l y , I did
not probe Fatima about where these facts had co me from, but it is likel y that they were
previ o u sl y learnt pieces of infor ma t i o n that she reme m b e r e d after the visi t to the
plane t a r i u m. Both of the facts appea r to be the sort of infor ma t i o n one lear n s about in
geogra p h y , and it may be (but cannot be proved ) that the visit trigge r e d their recall . I
230
therefo r e consid e r that her change in expl anation for the cause of day and night, from
move me n t around the Sun to the Earth spinni n g was likely to be the HC category of
emerg e n c e .
Anoth e r addit i o na l fact that Fatima appea r s to have reme mbe r e d as a resul t of her
visit was regardi n g a 10 th plane t . In both her post- v i s i t inter v i e w s she refer r e d to the idea
that aster o i ds were proba b l y the remai n s of a 10 th planet, which disintegrated. While the
planet a r i u m prese n t e r made severa l refer e n c e s to astero i d s , at no point did she state that
they may have been the remain s of a 10 th planet , and she made no refere nc e at all to a 10 th
planet , althou g h she did talk a bout there being ?anoth e r 600 Plut os ? (Lour d e s pltm 349) as
addition a l possible planets as part of the solar system. Again, Fatima may have heard about
the 10 th planet elsewh e r e , and when asked about it after her visit, reme mb e r e d that the
disintegration of an additional pl ane t is one expl a n a t i o n for the prese nc e of aster o i d s in the
solar syste m. This is again there f o r e a possi bl e exampl e of the HC categor y of emer gen c e
in Fatima ? s exper i e n c e .
Altho u g h Fatima showe d mainl y incre m e n t a l knowle d g e acquis i t i o n , and two
possib l e examp l e s of emerge n c e , she demons t r a t e d one inst an c e of what I classi f i e d as
discrimination, where she restructured her knowl ed g e to demons t r a t e the simila r i t i e s and
differen c e s between planets. In her post- vis i t PMM and intervie w she explaine d the
differ e n c e betwe e n the inner ?soli d? plane t s , and the outer gaseous planets , with Pluto
being the ?odd one out? (scf15 p o s p m m 011), and referred to the planetarium presenter
descri b i n g this. She stated ?The astron o me r at the Plane t a r i u m said Mercu r y , Venus and
Mars, they all have one thing in commo n becau s e they are more solid , and then Jupit er ,
Saturn and Uranus and Neptun e , they are more gaseous and then Pluto they?re not so sure
becau s e it?s like the odd one out.? (scf15p o s p m m 11). Accordi n g to human constru c t i vi s t
theor y , Fatima has estab l i s h e d criter i a for de fining the different type s of planet. Whereas
previ o u s l y she was able to list the nine plan et s , state that they revolv e around the Sun, and
rotate on their axes, she noted in her PMM her new understa n d i n g of the concept of a
plane t .
Fatima showed no other categor i e s of hu man constr u c t i vi s t cognit i ve learni n g , but
demon s t r a t ed severa l ideas which fall into the affec t i v e domai n . In her pre-v i s i t intervi e w ,
Fatima made it clear that she disli k e d schoo l subject s related to as tronomy, notably science
and geography. When asked why she didn?t lik e the subjects, she said ?I just don?t
unders t a n d some ti me s and it?s harder for me to do? (scf15preint 162). Although she
231
profess e d to be looking forwar d to the visi t, she appeare d to be ?lukewa r m? about the
prosp e c t . Howev e r , after the visit , Fatima expresse d that she had thorough l y enjoyed the
visit: ?I though t it was very intere s t i n g becau s e I learn t more thing s and it?s just very nice
going there. I enjoyed it? (scf15 p o s i n t 145). It appear s that the visit reinfo r c e d Fatima ? s
perso n a l inter e s t : prior to the visit she state d th at the stars inter e st e d her, and after the visit
she regarded the stars in the dark as being th e most enjoya b l e part of the experience. For
Fatima , the situat i o n a l intere s t (Hidi and Harach i e w i c z 2000) promot e d by the planet a r i u m
experi e n c e was congru e n t with her own individual interest.
There is little evidenc e that Fatima s howed much learni n g in the conati v e domain .
She had an idea that if she was to teach this topic to grade 8 learne r s she would do what her
teache r was doing, and ?take them to the Planet a r i u m and I?d try to make these thing s more
interest i n g ? (scf15pr e i n t 212). However, when asked how she might do this, Fatima could
not elabor a t e on what she might do. Unlike some other studen t s , Fatima was not inspir e d
by the visit to carry out any ac tivit i e s suggest e d by the planeta r i u m visit, althoug h she was
interv i e w e d only 2 days after th e visit , givin g littl e time fo r follow-up on her own. In the
categor y of ?trust? , Fatima expres s e d her Islami c belief s , and how import a nt it is to obse r ve
the Moon in order to determi n e the Islami c months , especi a l l y the fast.
In summa r y , Fatima ? s main abili t y after th e visit was to reme m b e r accur a t e l y many
of the facts she was shown during the demonstr a t i o n . While her initi a l ideas about some of
the astrono m y concep t s were wrong or misc onc e i v e d , she was able to correct them
effec t i v e l y by the time of the post-v i s i t inter v i e w , as she was able to reme mbe r much of
what she had been told durin g the visit . This sugge s t s that for visit o r s such as Fatima , the
factual nature of the show was beneficial in terms of learni n g . Fatima also demons t r a t e d
two exampl e s of HC discri mi n a t i o n which were not shown by student s in Chapter 7.
8.1.2 Portrait of Brenda (swo70)
Table 8.5 Position of Brenda on Big Ideas classification table
D 2.6-3.0 Brenda
C 2.1-2.5
B 1.6-2.0
A 1.0-1.5
Post A B C D
Pre Mean 1.0-1.5 1.6-2.0 2.1-2.5 2.6-3.0
232
Table 8.6 Brenda?s knowledge of Big Ideas
Grav ity Star
concep t
Sun
concep t
Size/
Scale
Sun
mov e men t
Moon
phase s
Parab o lic/
Satellite Dish
Aver ag e
pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post
1 2 1 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 1 n/a 2.5 3 1.9 2.7
Brenda was initially chosen as being repres e n t a t i v e of the 9 st udents in the largest
catego r y : BC. These studen t s went to the sc ienc e centr e with aver age knowledge of big
ideas and increased their knowledge still fu rther. It was difficu l t to choose a single
indivi d u a l to repres e n t this group, and instea d of choosi n g a student from the BC category I
select e d Brenda as a studen t who showed the large s t chang e in score , impro v e me n t s in 4
big ideas and a signif i c a n t increa s e in her vocabul a r y . Brenda ? s knowle d g e level of big
ideas change d from a mean of 1.9 to 2.7, while the vocabul a r y she used on her PMM
increas e d from 19 to 28 words.
Brenda is a 13-year - o l d grade 7 student studying at Balfour Fo rest School since
grade 1. She is Sepedi-s p e a k i n g , and says her fa mil y also speak some Engli s h at home. She
lives in a townsh i p in northe r n Johann e s b u r g and travel s to school by minibu s taxi each
day. Brenda drew her PMM on 8 th October and was interviewed on 21 st , 3 days before she
visite d Harteb e e s t h o e k Radio Astron o m y Observa t o r y with her class on 24 th October. She
comple t e d her post-v i s i t PMM on 30 th Octobe r , and was interv i e w e d the same day.
Unfort u n a t e l y it was not possib l e to obtain Bren d a ? s acade mi c recor d from Balfou r Fores t
School, as compute r s on which records were kept had been stolen in 2004.
Brenda knew where she was going on her impend i n g visit, and that it was relate d to
scienc e and techno l o g y , specif i c a l l y learni n g about practi c a l aspect s of the Earth, the
planet s , stars and univer s e . She said she was lookin g forwar d to the visit as it would give
her a chance to learn mo re about the univer s e . Br enda? s main interes t appeare d to be in the
names of planet s and stars rathe r than scient i f i c aspects of the topi c. She said ?These
planet s have got differe n t name s from ? I don?t know, I think it?s about Jupite r or
Uranus. It was named after the Roman god of the sun or something. I really find their
name s inter e s t i n g ? (swo7 0 p r e i n t 305). She re me mb e r e d having heard about a meteor i t e
possibly going to hit the Earth (t he previou s year) bu t hadn?t heard or r ead anyt h i ng else
relat e d to the topic of astro n o my recen t l y . Prior to her visit and compa r e d to other stude n t s ,
Brenda did not show partic u l a r fasci n a t i o n or inter e s t in astr o n o my as a topic , but appea r e d
to have a focus on astrolo g y and the na mes of constell a t i o n s and planets.
233
Brenda liked her school a lot, and explai n e d that she liked not only learni n g fro m
the teacher s but also going to the librar y to look up information for herself. She said she
liked all her school subjects, and did not have either a favouri t e or a least-favourite. In her
spare time she has violin lessons , attend s church and does her homework. Her favourite
televi s i o n progr a m me s are comed i e s and drama (soap opera s ) and the most recen t thing
she had read for pleasure was a novel called Th e Witch Child . Brend a th oug h t that no other
life has ever been found beyon d the Earth, but that life mi ght be possib l e on Mars. She
emphat i c a l l y did not believ e in aliens , but read s her horoscope and believes that what is
predi c t e d does come true for he r. She believes in God, but does not thi nk that space and the
univers e has much to do with God, except that he created them. She also thought that some
of the names in the solar syste m were na med after gods, but did not specify which gods.
Brenda ? s use of astrono my- r e l a t e d voca bu l a r y in her pre-vis i t PMM was about
avera g e for the study at 19 words, while after the visit she used nine additi o n a l words,
above the average for her school (5.4) and the study (6.8). She was the only student in the
study who used the words ?horo s c o p e ? and ?Vir go? in her pre-vis i t PMM, confirmi n g her
particular interest in astr ology. Her pre-visit PMM (Figur e 8.2 and Appendix J) was not
very extensive: she named the nine planets, stated that th ey revolve aro und the Sun, gave
some brief facts (e.g. relat i v e size, posit i o n) about Earth , Plut o , Mercu r y and Jupit e r , made
some observations about space (no air or grav ity), name d the Milky Way and referred to
const el l at i o ns as the ?hor o s c o p e ? . In her in terview she could not elaborate on the Milky
Way except that its stars are white ?and th at ? s why they? r e calle d the Milky Way?
(swo70 p r e pm m 07). She gave some additi o na l facts about Jupite r , Mercur y and Pluto, and
when asked what the Sun would look like view ed from Pluto she correc t l y stated ?Very
small. Like a small dot? (swo70 p r e pm m 31). This indica t e s an abilit y to visual i s e posit i o n
and scale from elsewh e r e in the solar syst em which is a sophist i c a t e d ability . Her
capab i l i t y of rough l y estima t i n g scale was furthe r confi r me d by the fact that ?about ten
Earths? could fit into Jupite r (swo70prepmm 53). Brenda re me mbered seeing the stars
signs on a school visit to the bush (?at camp?) , includ i n g Capric o r n . She also referr e d to
Mars being ?resea r c h e d ? to tell whethe r humans w ould be able to live there. Brenda stated
that the topic of astron o my had been covere d ?usually every year we do it during the
second term? (swo70 p r e p m m 75), and she had clea rl y learn t quite a few facts about the
topic. Her enthus i a s m for school indica t e s that she learns relatively easily.
234
Figure 8.2 Brenda?s PMM (pre and post)
L i k e Botho, in terms of Big Ideas in astr on o my Brenda showed differ e n t levels of
knowle d g e prior to her visit to HartRA O . Wh il e she didn? t know much factu a l info r ma t i o n
about the Sun, she did know that day and night are caused by the Earth spinning on its axis.
She knew that the Sun is bigger than the Moon, but was unable to explain why they look
simil a r in size in the sky. Her conce p t of stars was quite na?ve : she refer r e d to them as
?light s in the sky?, and althou g h she understood that they are much bigger ?up close? than
they appear in the sky, her idea was that are about ?as big as this room? in size
(swo70 p r e i n t 165). Simi la r l y her id ea of what the stars are co mposed of ?When the planets
are forme d , the piece s that were left over, fo r me d the stars ? (swo7 0 p r e i n t 169) indic a t e s an
unsoph i s t i c a t e d notion , and she was classi f i e d at knowled g e level 1 for stars. Regardi n g
gravity, Brenda?s knowledge was also at knowle d g e level 1, as she knew that it is some
sort of pull (?the air that pulls us down fr om like float i n g aroun d ? ) an d that ?there?s no
gravi t y is space ? (swo7 0p r e i nt 229 & 237). Becau s e of this idea, she did not think there
would be any gravity on the Moon or planets. In contrast , her knowledg e of satellites was
close r to a scient i fi c notio n : she knew that a satel l i t e is an instr u me n t in space sendi n g
signal s . She knew that a satell i t e dish points to a satellite in space, but could not explain
235
how the shape of a dish is re late d to its functi o n . Brend a kne w that the phases of the Moon
occurre d , but could not explain why.
After her visit Brenda added severa l ac cur a t e l y - r e me mbe r e d facts to her PMM,
including the following:
? N e u t r o n stars as collapse d stars and re d giants which have expande d massiv e l y
(?10 mill i o n time s diame t e r ?) .
? S e v e r a l exampl e s of scale a nd number s in the univer s e :
o T h e Earth ? s mass as 6x10 2 1 kg.
o T h e relat i v e size of the Sun and the Earth (320 times in mass ) .
o T h e Earth 1.3 light second s from the Moon and 8 light minute s from the
Sun.
o 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 million stars in the Milky Way
? D i f f e r e n c e s betwee n the inner rocky planets and the outer gaseous ones.
? T h e fact that Jupit e r has ?more than enough? gravity and has 64 not 16 moons.
Simil a r l y , in her post-v i s i t struc t u r e d in tervie w Brenda had changed some of her
knowled g e about the big ideas and other con cepts in astronom y , summaris e d in Table 8.7.
Table 8.7 Ways in which Brenda changed her ideas about concepts
Concept Pre-visit idea Post-visit idea
G r a v i t y Pulli n g force , no gravi t y in space or
on Moon or Jupi t e r .
Pulli n g force , low gravi ty on
Moon, high grav i t y on Jupit e r &
Sun, relat e d to size, Earth gravi ty
does not affec t Moon.
Star facts Lights in the sky , size of a room,
co mpo s e d of pieces of planet s .
Lights in the sky , simila r size to
the Sun.
Sun facts The bigges t star, Surfac e very hot,
used for energy .
Not the bigges t star, surfa c e 5
milli o n degre e s , sun spot of 4500
degrees .
Size and scal e Star size due to distan c e , Sun
bigges t star, stars siz e of a room
Star size ~Su n , referenc e to light
secon d s , minut e s and years.
Day /n i g h t Scien t i f i c conce p t i o n Scien t i f i c conce p t i o n
Moon phase s Descr i b e d phase s . No expl a n a t i o n . Not asked
Satel l i t e & di sh Instr u m e n t in space , dish point s to
satelli t e in space.
As pre-vi s i t .
236
Her PMM shows that Brenda appear e d to be very adept at reme mbe r i n g facts and figures,
and most of the knowled g e increa s e she demons t r a t e d on her post- v i s i t PMM I classi f i e d as
additio n : she added severa l facts, partic u l a r l y nu mbe r s , about stars , the Earth and the Sun
to her existin g knowle d g e . When ta ken togeth e r , I sugges t that her unders t a n d i n g of size
and scale in the solar syst e m has been consid e r a bl y enhan c e d by the additional facts learnt.
Brend a herse l f confi r me d this later in her inter v i e w , where she refer r e d to the size of the
Earth in relati o n to the Sun as being amazi n g : ?I told them about the Earth. Like it?s about
3 and 24 ze ros and like the sun eh 320 times bi gger than the Earth, it?s very, very big. I
couldn? t believ e it? (swo70 p o s i n t 217). Although Brenda doe s not quite reme mb er the
mass of the Earth correc t l y , and refers to it as 6 x 10 21 kg in her PMM and ?3 and 24 zeros?
in her inter vi e w , her conce p t i o n of the size of the Earth and also the size of the Earth and
Sun in relati o n to each other have chang e d subst a n t i a l l y from her pre-v i s i t inter vi e w, where
these were not mentio n e d . Simila r l y , Brenda has modified her unde rstanding of scale by
her reference to light seconds and light minutes. She remember s correctly that the Earth is
1.3 light second s from the Moon and 8 light minutes from the Sun; facts which were
referred to during the HartRAO vi sit. When questio n e d about th is she demonst r a t e s only a
limited unders t a n d i n g of the con cept of light seconds and mi nut es , but appears to have the
basic unders t a n d i n g that they ar e units of distance, as shown in the following exchange.
Inter v i e w e r : If you say the sun is 8 light minut e s fro m the Earth . What does
that mean?
Brend a : A light minut e is equal to 300 000 secon d s per minut e I? m not
sure. Ja.
Inter v i e w e r : So what does a light minut e mean? What do you actua l l y mean
by that?
Brenda : The distan c e betwee n the sun and light becaus e we do not use
kilomet r e s an d metr es in space. Ja. We use light years and light
minut e s and light secon d s in space .
Interv i e w e r : Right. So that? s a distan c e . It? s actual l y a distan c e . Okay . And
it?s a measur e of, if it?s a light minut e it?s the one min u t e times
what? Time s ?
Bren d a : Times 3, I think it?s 300 000 .
Inter v i e w e r : Okay . And 300 000 is what?
Brend a : Is 1 light secon d . It? s equal to 1 light secon d .
(swo 7 0 p o s i n t 103- 11 7 )
Togeth e r , I sugges t that these changes in her understanding of size and scale are examples
of human constructivist differentiation and superordinate learni ng. Brenda now has a
signif i c a nt l y chang e d and enhanc e d under s t a ndi n g which const i t ut e s a differ e n t i a t e d
237
underst a n d i n g of size and scal e. Brenda has also acquired a complete l y new concept
(supero r d i n a t e learnin g ) of distanc e being measured in light units. This new concept
includes (or subsumes ) concepts of light a nd time (years, minutes and seconds ) which
Brend a was previ o u sl y famil i a r with. Altho u g h I am not conv i n c e d that Bren d a can expl a i n
how her new unders t a n d i n g of light units is a measur e of distan c e , I consider that she
shows substa n t i a l knowle d g e rest ructuring. The new concept of light units links to the
fa mili a r conce p t s of distan c e , light and units of time.
Brenda? s knowled g e of gravity changed quite su bsta n t i a l l y after the visit. While she still
referr e d to gravity as ?air th at pulls us down?, she now knew that there is a small amount
of gravit y in space, on the Moon and a large amount of gravity on Ju pit e r and the Sun. I
regarde d her learnin g about gravity as a form of differe n t i a t i o n , where she has learnt (by
additi o n ) some separa t e facts about gravity, and has modified her conce p t of it as a result .
However , her true underst a n d i n g of gravity is still quite limite d , as she demons t r a t e s in the
follow i n g exchan g e :
Brend a : Ja Jupit e r has more than enoug h gravi ty . Ja it?s not suita b l e for
human s to live in?.
Inter v i e w e r : Okay . So what would it be like if we were there ?
Bren d a : It would just push us down and up.
Inter v i e w e r : Okay . So if we have gr avit y like we have here, the moon has a
littl e bit of gravi t y and Jupit e r has a lot of gravi ty , what? s gravi ty
related to? What causes it?
Brend a : I think it? s big and there? s enoug h space for a lot of gravit y . You
can hold up more than enou g h grav i ty .
Interv i e w e r : Okay . Does the sun have gravit y ?
Bren d a : I think on the atmo s p h e r e of the sun becaus e there ? s a lot of
gravi ty .
Interv i e w e r : Right. Okay . Does the Ea rth ? s gravity have any affec t on the
moo n ?
Bren d a : I don?t thin k so. I don? t know .
Inter v i e w e r : Okay . Does the moon? s gr avi t y have any affec t on the Earth ?
Bren d a : I don?t thin k so.
(swo 7 0 p o s i n t 149- 16 5 )
Like her under s t a n d i n g of size and scale , her apprec i a t i o n of gravit y has been enhanc e d by
the experi e nc e at HartRA O , but she still appear s to retai n misco n c e pt i o ns , such as the fact
that it is related some ho w to an atmosph e r e .
Regarding stars, Brenda had a mo re scient i fi c under s t a n di n g after the visit in that she now
knew that their size is simil a r to that of the Sun rather than a room: ?Some of them might
238
be big as the sun [some ] might be sma ller? (swo70po s i n t 085). She was not question e d
about their compo s i t i o n or positi o n but she had referr e d to neutro n stars and red giants in
her PMM. Although this collective increase in her factual knowledge about stars might be
consid e r e d an exampl e of differ e n t i a t i o n , I do not think there is suffi c i e n t evide n c e in the
data to strong l y sugges t this form of learni ng. As it stands Brenda?s knowledge of stars has
increa s e d , but they still appea r to remai n separ a t e isolat e d facts, rather than compre h e n s i v e
modifi c a t i o n of a subsumi n g concep t . In a si milar vein, Brenda? s knowled g e of the Sun
also increa se d by the additi o n of new fact s. She gave some figure s for the Sun?s
tempe r a t u r e (rang i n g from 5 millio n to 15 bil lio n degree s Celsiu s ) which she did not know
in her pre-vi s i t inter v i ew . She also refer r e d to the presenc e of a sun spot (coole r that the
rest of the Sun) and the fact that the Sun is not the biggest star, but there are others of a
simil a r size. Again , I regar d these as addit i o na l incre me n t a l facts that Brend a has learnt
about the Sun. They may for m the basis for a changed underst a n d i n g of the concept ?Sun?,
but currentl y they remain separate facts about it that she has learnt. Brenda?s knowledge of
day and night and satelli t e s did not change afte r the visit, and I did not ask her about Moon
phases in her post-vi s i t interv i e w .
Like most other studen t s in the study Br enda mainly showed examples of addition
in her knowle d g e const r u c t i o n . She accumul a t e d numerous factual pieces of knowledg e
over the period betwe e n her pre- and post interv i e w , and it is likel y that the visit to
HartRAO was princip a l l y respons i b l e for this; only six days elapsed between the visit and
the interv i ew . In additi o n to the exampl e s of differe n t i a t i o n descri b e d , Brenda
demons t r a t e d one instan c e of discri mi n a t i o n . In human constr u c t i v i s t terms discri mi n a t i o n
is where a lear n e r can ident i fy simil a r i t i e s and differences betw ee n close l y relat e d
concep t s . Brenda demons t r a t e d this in her PMM, were she stated that the 4 inner planet s
are compos e d of dust and rock, while the 4 outer ones (excep t for Pluto) are ?made fro m
ice and gas? (swo70 p o s 12). Brenda did not de mons t r a t e ma ny exampl e s of learni n g in the
affect i v e domai n : she expres s e d enjoy me n t at using the rocket s and ?cellp h o n e s ? (the
whisp e r i n g dishe s ) , as well as wonde r at the size of the Earth and Sun. Finally, Brenda did
show two examples of learning related to the conative doma i n. She took some pa mp hlets
which were handed to students at HartRAO and said that she had read them, and that ?I
think I?ve got a lot of infor ma t i o n about th e galaxies and the stars? (swo70po s i n t 233).
Signifi c a n t l y , her visit appeare d to provi d e some confl i c t re garding Brenda?s religious
belief s and the scienc e she learnt at the centre . In her pre-vis i t inter v i e w she did not think
239
there is any relationship between God and sp ace, planets and the un iverse , although she
believe d that ?He created them? (swo70p r e i n t 35 3). Howeve r , after th e visit she was much
less certain of her own views in this regar d . She said:
Brend a : Since I went to the trip it ? s very comp lic a t e d because from what
I? ve learnt in HSS [Hu man and Social Scienc e s ] the world starte d
as a small, tiny little thing and the water, that was writt e n by I
don?t know who somet h i n g Darw i n , but in the Bible it say s it?s
Ada m and Eve and then comes the plan e t and all. I think it?s a lot
co mp li c a t i n g .
Interv i e w e r : Hmmm. So you? re not really sure.
Brend a : Ja I?m not sure. I don?t know which one to belie v e , the Bible or
evol u t i on or some t h i n g .
(swo 7 0 p o s i n t 245- 24 9 )
This suggests that her trust in the science pres ented at HartRAO, as well as what she has
learnt at school confli c t s with her religi o u s belief. Alsop and Watts (1997) include the
concep t of trust in the conati v e domai n , and I regar d her views as signi fi c a n t in that the
confl i c t she is expr e s si ng has the poten t i a l fo r further action or consideration on her part.
Table 8.8 summari s e s how Bre nda?s knowledge was transfor me d between the pre- and
post-v i s i t inter v i e w s .
Table 8.8 Frequency of Human Cons tructivism codes for Brenda
Knowledge
construction
category
PrePMM &
Interview
PostPMM &
Interview
Pre Interview Post
Interview
Totals
A dd itio n n/a 13 n/a 5 18
Emergen c e n/a 0 n/a 0 0
Differen tiatio n n/a 0 n/a 2 2
Discr imin a tio n n/a 1 n/a 0 1
Recon tex tu a lisa tio n n/a 0 n/a 0 0
Affective 0 0 2 2 4
Supero rd in ate
Lear n in g
0 0 0 1 1
Conativ e 0 0 0 2 2
Totals 0 14 2 12 28
In summa r y Brend a demon s t r a t e d some subst a n t i al lear n i ng from her visi t to Hart RA O . In
additi o n to the large numbe r of individ u a l fact s she learn t and an exten s i o n of her
astro n o my - r e l a t e d vocab u l a r y , Brend a (like Fatima ) showe d examp l e s of both
differ e n t i a t i o n and discri mi n a t i o n . In huma n cons t r u ct i vi s t terms thes e examp l e s of
learnin g sugges t greate r knowle d g e restru c t u r i n g , which is likely to result in more long
term learni n g . Combin e d with her propen s i t y fo r me mor i s i n g facts , Brend a can be said to
240
have learned very effectively at HartRAO. She mainly improv e d her ?knowi n g a lot of
scienc e ? litera c y (Duran t, 1993) rather than showing any change in her cultural science
literacy (Shen, 1975). Brenda?s interest in the topic appear e d to be mainly confi n e d to
astrol o g y , which was reinfo r c e d to a limite d extent by the display s at HartRAO , but
compa r e d with her consi d e r a bl e cogni t i ve le arn i n g , Brend a did not show much in the
affec t i v e doma i n . She did howev e r , demon s tr a t e conative aspects which, like her
knowledge restructuring, suggest a deeper engageme nt with the issues presented to her at
HartRAO. As a student who went to the cent re with some prior knowledg e of big and
signifi c a n t ideas in astrono my , Bre nda demons t r a t e d an ability not only to extend her
knowle d g e of these ideas still furthe r , but also to combi ne the increme n t a l additi o nal
knowle d g e she acquir e d into more s ubstan t i a l knowled g e restruc t u r i n g .
Both Fatim a and Brend a demon s t r a t e that the wealt h of detai l e d infor ma t i o n
presente d at the study sites is accessi b l e enough for some stude n t s to remembe r after their
visit. In Braund and Reiss? s terms (2004) both Fatima and Brenda engaged with their
experien c e and deepened their knowledg e a nd understanding of astron o m y concep t s .
8.1.3 Portrait of Helen (scf11)
Table 8.9 Position of Helen on Big Ideas classification table
D 2.6-3.0 Helen
C 2.1-2.5
B 1.6-2.0
A 1.0-1.5
Post A B C D
Pre Mean 1.0-1.5 1.6-2.0 2.1-2.5 2.6-3.0
Table 8.10 Helen?s knowledge of Big Ideas
Solar
Syste m
Star
concep t
Sun
concep t
Size/
Scale
Sun
mov e men t
Moon
phase s
Grav ity Aver ag e
pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post
2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 2.1 2.6
Helen was chosen as an exampl e of a stude n t in the CD catego r y . Accord i n g to my
analy si s of her PMM and inter vi e w s , like Neo sh e went on the trip to the Plane t a r i u m with
above-a v e r a g e knowled g e about Big Ideas but unlike Neo increased her knowledge more
substan t i a l l y : her knowled g e leve l of Big Ideas change d from a mean of 2.1 to 2.6. This
increa s e was sligh t l y more than eithe r of the other two stude n t s in this categ or y . Her pre-
vi s i t interv i e w s show that she held variou s misconceptions about the solar system and
space, some of which change d after the visit, wherea s othe rs did not.
241
Helen is a 14-year-old white grade 8 st udent and attends L ourdes Girls School, a
private school in the western suburbs of Johannesburg. Helen lives in a suburb in the
western part of Johanne s b u r g , approx i ma t e l y 10km from the scho o l , and comes from an
English - s p e a k i n g family . Academi c a l l y Helen is a high achiever, getting an overall year
mark of 78% in 2003.
Helen drew her PMM on 9th Octobe r and was interviewed on 13th October, the
day before she visited the Johannesburg Planet ar i u m as part of the class visit. On 16th
October, all the students who ha d been on the field trip did their repeat P MM during school
time and I re-int e r v i e w e d Helen on the same da y. Helen was looking forward to the visit as
she had been told by others that ?it?s fun? and she express e d a moderat e interes t in
astron o my , findin g ?some of it? inte res t i n g , such as the following extract from her pre-visit
inter v i e w :
Helen : That how big the unive r s e is a nd that we don?t even know how far
it stretch e s . I mean we hav e only disco ver e d Plut o and there ? s
gonna be more plane t s after that. We?ll just have to look more to
find more thin g s .
(scf1 1 p r e i n t 254)
She didn?t recal l any space- r e l a t e d items in th e news recent l y . Helen did not profes s to
enjoying school greatly, and found that being with her friends was the most appealing part
of it, as well as writing tests, and receiv ing (good) marks back from her teacher. Her
favouri t e subjec t s , in which she gets good mark s were Mathema t i c s a nd Account i n g , while
Biolog y and Englis h were her le ast favour i t e , and she receive d the lowest marks for these
subjects. It appears that, for Helen, enjoyme n t of a subjec t wa s close l y relat e d to her own
achie v e me n t in it. She attac he d great impo r t a n c e to her friends, and referred to them on
several occasio n s , includi n g ?goi ng out? with them as one of her principal two recreational
activit i e s , the other one being reading fiction . Helen?s career pl ans are to become a lawyer .
Althou g h Helen knows that extra- t e r r e s t r i a l life has not been discov e r e d , she thinks there is
the possib i l i t y of life elsewh e r e , but does not believ e in aliens . She unders t a n d s that
astrol o g e r s use the stars accor d i n g to the time of year to predi c t the futur e , and altho u g h
she state s that what they predi c t is ?abso lu t e rubbis h ? she does read her horosco p e , and
thinks they someti me s ?gue ss correctl y ? (scf11pr e i n t 278). Helen conside r s herself
relig i o u s , and like most studen t s belie v e s th at God created everything, including the solar
syste m.
242
In her use of astro n o my words and terms Helen ? s prior knowl e d g e of astro n o my
was reason a b l e , but not substa n t i a l . While he r use of astro no my - r e l at e d words was below
the average at 16 in her pre-vis i t PMM (s tudy average was 20, school average 21), her
post-visit vocabulary rose by 9, which was abov e that of her school (7.6) and the study
(7.2) . Her person a l meani n g map (Figur e 8.3) s howed a number of interes t i n g concep t s .
She refer r e d to the phrase ?ligh t year? in her pre-visit PMM which was used by only three
others students prior to their visit, and although she couldn?t explain why it is called a light
year, did unders t a n d that it is a measur e of dist an c e . She made refere n c e to distan c e in
space and the solar syst e m four times in he r PMM, indica t i n g an unders t a n di n g of the
import a n c e of scale in astron o my . She also st ated several facts about various planets,
inclu di n g the inter e st i ng obser vation that ?each planet is tilte d at a speci fi c degr ee?
(scf11pre 32). In the interview, she stated that this is so that the planets don?t ?bash into
each other? (scf11prepmm 03) and also result s in the seasons . When probed how this
causes seaso n s she gave a partia l l y corre c t sc ientif i c explanat i o n regardin g how the sun
shines on either the northe r n or southe r n hemi sp h e r e . Her underst a n d i n g of gravity was
simil a r to that of many other stude nt s : she unders t o o d that gravit y is a pulling force, but
conside r e d that there is no gravity in space, on the moon or the sun. Her only refere n c e to
stars in her PMM was that th ey produce their own light.
243
Figure 8.3 Helen?s PMM (pre and post)
I n her pre-vi s i t interv i e w Helen demons t r a t e d a number of aspect s of her knowle d g e of
astron o my . She knew that planet s such as Mars, Jupite r and Saturn are visibl e in the night
sky, and that they appear like st ars. Her concept of the solar sy ste m was that it is round like
a plum, and consis t s of the sun, nine planet s and their moons (level 2). Like many other
stude n t s , she also consi d e r e d that ?the stars ? are part of the solar system. She had a basic
unders t a n d i n g of the sun: that it consist s of gas, and release s heat and light (also level 2).
When asked to expla i n why the sun moves acros s the sky, she became very confu s e d , and
could not provide a coheren t explan a t i o n for the phenome n on. Her initial reasoning was
that the Earth revolv e s around the sun, but when provided with a model sun and Earth, she
found it difficu l t to elabora t e , ex cept to state that the sun move s from West to East across
the sky, and was theref o r e class i f i e d as level 1. She was however , able to explain that the
sun and moon look roughly the same size because the moon is a lot closer to us than the
sun. Her concept of stars was quite well develop e d , that they are mas ses which produc e
their own light and heat, and that they are very distan t from us, result i n g in their appare n t
tiny size (although there are st ars the size of our sun). However, she did have one
miscon c e p t i o n about stars : she t hought that they might be made of rock, and did not relate
them to being simil a r to the sun in co mposi t i o n , so was classif i e d as level 2.
244
Like many students Helen struggled to explain why the moon shows phases, but
she did appear to have a scient i f i c id ea (level 3), though not well expresse d :
Helen: Becaus e, umm, it refl ec t s like the sun? s light and its shadow ,
so me, so me parts are differ e n t , like it revo lv e s around the sun, the
Earth ? a n d then the sun? s light cover s some parts of the moon
and somet i m e s other parts like you can see only one part of the
sun.
(scf 1 1 p r e i n t 182- 1 86 )
Helen? s concep t of distan c e , referr e d to in her pre-vi s i t PMM was ag ain demons t r a t e d in
her interv i e w , and she guesse d that it might take a spaces h i p about 100 years to reach the
neares t star outsid e our solar syste m. This indi ca t e s at l east a partial unde rst a n d i n g of the
scale in space, which is supporte d by her concepts of light year and that fact that starlight
takes a long time to reach us here on Earth (level 3)
After her visit to the plane t ar i u m, Helen elab or ated on a number of her pre-visi t ideas. In
Human Const r u c t i v i s t terms her post-v i s i t P MM (see Figure 8.3) showed severa l exampl e s
of addition , where she listed new knowledg e such as:
? T h e star Proxi ma Centa u r i being the close st star to the Sun
? S t a r s as being burning balls of gas
? S o me planet s having very thick atmo sp h e r e s
Severa l of these additi o n a l fact s and ideas were elaborat e d u pon in the interview relating to
her PMM. She did howeve r , discus s severa l idea s in her PMM intervi e w which appear e d to
show more substan t i a l knowle d g e restru c t u r i n g rather than simple additi on . The main one
of these was regardi n g the c oncep t of gravit y . Prior to th e visit she had a very limit e d
concep t i o n of gravit y : that it was a pullin g force (on Earth), but that there is no gravity in
space, on the moon or elsewh e r e in the sola r system. Her post-vis i t ideas were very
different. First, she explained in her PMM and elabo r a t e d in her inter vi e w that the sun is
held in place by means of the gr avi t y of the plane t s , as well as the sun?s gravity holding the
planets in orbit. Although I us ed this as an exam ple in section 5.6.1, it is worth repeating
here :
Helen : Okay . The sun doesn ? t stand still . It moves aroun d . If you look
throug h a telesc o p e you can actual l y see it wobble a bit from ti me
to time. And becau s e of our gravi t y . The sun ? Hold. The
sun? s gravi t a t i o n holds us in place , but we also hold the sun in
place by our, by the means of our gravi t a t i o n a l pull. And the
plane t s .
(scf1 1 p o s p m m 07)
245
It is highl y likel y that Helen learn t this fr om the visit to the planet a r i u m. The presen t er
spent some time explain i n g how the sun?s gravit y keeps the planets in orbit around it, as
well as the idea that the sun is not stati o n ar y , but that it is moving in circle s pulled by the
gravity of the orbiting planets. Secondly, He len change d her ideas about gravity on the
plane t s in the solar syste m. In her post- v i si t PMM she refer r e d to the plane t s having
gravity, and in her interview she expanded on this idea. As she was probe d about the
concep t , her idea develo p e d , and she realis e d that she ?knew? , at least partia l l y , what
caused gravit y :
Interv i e w e r : And ? Do they have the sa me amoun t of gravi ty or is it diffe r e n t
on diffe r e n t plane t s ?
Helen : They?r e differ e n t .
Inter v i e w e r : Okay . Why is that? What?s it relat e d to?
Helen : I?m not sure.
Inte r v i e w e r : Okay . Like the moon or ? you don? t know ?
Helen : The moon is ? If we wen t like, right here ? Here ? Umm, we
? If, let?s say, I weigh 40kg here [on Earth ], on the moon I?ll
weig h abou t 10.
Interv i e w e r : Okay .
Helen: Becaus e the gravit a t i o n a l pull is less.
Interv i e w e r : Okay .
Helen : And it pulls you more, yeah, it pulls you in.
Inter v i e w e r : Okay . And suppo s i ng you are on Jupit e r ? Would it be great e r or
lesser?
Helen : Greate r , I think. The bigger the planet is I think, the mor e gravit y
you? v e got.
(scf1 1 p o s p m m 45-6 7 )
When asked where she learned what she was expla i ni n g , she admit t e d that she didn? t know
where, she just ?knew?. What she explain e d in this seque nce was not covered during the
visit to the plane t a r i u m. Like some other stud en t s in the study (for exampl e John and to a
lesser extent Fatima and Nonkulul eko), the visit app eared to remi nd Helen of previous l y -
learned knowledge, which she coul d now rela t e to the inte r vi e wer, but may not have been
aware that she ?knew?. This is emerge n t knowle d g e in human constr u c t i v i s t terms. Furthe r
her relati ve l y sophis t i c a t e d unders t a n d i n g of th e Sun holdin g the planet s in place as well
vice versa and additi o nal ideas about gravi t y on the planet s sugge s t s that she has change d
her own unders t a n di n g of gravit y suffi c i e n t l y that differentiation has taken place. Table
8.11 shows Helen?s learning classified in HC terms.
246
In the struc t u r e d post- v i s i t inter vi e w , Helen appeared to have changed her
unders t a n d i n g of severa l concep t s as a result of the visit. So me of this appear s to be the
result of a good me mory , for exampl e she reme mbered the figure given by the planetarium
presen t e r for the time it might take a spaces h i p to reach the neares t star : 4000 years, as well
as the names of stars refer r e d to in the prese n t a t i o n : Alpha and Proxi ma Centa u r i . As in her
PMM, I regard these as exampl e s of additi o n , as they involv e new facts learnt during the
visit . Howev e r , Hele n also showe d two areas in which her expla n at i o n for a pheno me n o n
chang e d consi d e r a bl y . The first of these was her explanation of w hy the sun moves across
the sky. In her pre-vi s i t interv i e w she strugg l e d to provid e a clear explan a t i o n for this, and
was at a loss to demons t r a t e using the m ode l of the Earth and Sun, despite probing.
However, she managed to explain the concept with ease in her post-v i s i t inter vi e w , as
shown in the follo w i n g trans c r i pt :
Interv i e w e r : Okay . Umm. Why does the sun move across the sky every day?
Helen: It? s becaus e we rotate .
Interv i e w e r : Uh-hmm. Okay . So, with the model we got here. If the sun is
there , what? s the Earth doing ?
Helen : The Earth is going this way like a?
Intervi e w e r : Okay . So what? s actuall y caus i n g the sun to move? Appar e n t l y
? Is it the movi n g roun d of the sun or is it the rotat i n g ?
Helen : Rotati n g .
(scf 1 1 p o s i n t 63-6 5 )
This change in her explan a t i o n was not probed durin g the interv i e w , but there are a number
of possib l e reason s for it:
? T h e pre-visi t intervie w resulted in her clarif y i n g her own unders t a n d i n g after the
visit was over;
? S h e sought out the explana t i o n for hersel f after the pre-visit interview; or
? T h e visit helped her to clarify her own underst a n d i n g of the phenome n o n or
remi nde d her of what she had learnt previo u s l y .
It is not possi b l e to determi n e whic h of thes e appli e d in Helen ? s case, as I did not probe her
in the second interview regarding her change in explanation. The fi rst two reasons would
be due to the resea r c h proc e s s itse l f, whil e th e third coul d be claime d be a direct resul t of
the visit, possib l y an ex amp l e of emerg e n c e . Wh at is clear however, is that her explanation
for this phenome n o n did change after the first intervi e w .
The second change in Helen? s explan a t i o n was regardin g the moon phas e s. While
her pre-visit explanation had some scientific ba si s to it, she strugg l e d to explain what she
meant so that it was diffi c u l t to determi n e how well sh e understood the phenome non.
247
However , her post-v i s i t unders t a n d i n g was made quite explic i t , and was as clear as anyone
could be without the benef i t of models or drawin g s :
Helen : Becau s e ? Umm, the mo on revolv e s aroun d us, the Earth . And
the sun?s light ? Umm how can I say , the sun? s light ?OK
You can only see the parts of the moon that ? Umm, the sun,
that recei v e s the sunli g h t. The sun? s light. The shado w part you
can? t see.
(scf 1 1 p o s i n t 094)
As with her clarification of the sun?s passage across the sky, something intervened to
improve her explanation, but wh ether it was the visit or some other intervention prompted
by the resear c h cannot be determi n e d .
Table 8.11 Frequency of Human Co nstructivism codes for Helen
Knowledge
construction
category
PrePMM &
Interview
PostPMM &
Interview
Pre
Interview
Post
Interview
Totals
A dd itio n n/a 7 n/a 4 11
Emerg e n c e n/a 2 n/a 0 2
Diff er en tiatio n n/a 3 n/a 2 5
Disc r imin a tio n n/a 1 n/a 0 1
Reco n tex tu a lisa tio n n/a 0 n/a 0 0
Affe c tiv e 0 0 4 3 7
Cona tiv e 0 2 0 1 3
Totals 0 15 4 10 29
From an affec t i v e persp e c t i ve , Helen most enjoyed the zodiacal constellation pictures,
when they were superim p o s e d on to the stars, and the exper i e nc e of the plane t a r i um itsel f .
She state d :
Helen : I actua l l y liked the way they made you go insid e and that you
could actua l l y ? Like you felt like you could feel the plane t s .
That they were right there .
(scf 1 1 p o s i n t 110)
In other respects however, Helen did not show a stro n g inter e s t in astr ono my eith e r befor e
her visit or when reflec t i n g on it afterw a r d s . The visit did however prompt Helen to take
action (the conativ e dimensi o n ) . She used the map handed out at the pl aneta r i u m to look at
the stars with her fa mily after the visit. She said ?It took me a while to figure it out, after I
figured it out and it was very nice. I showed my fa mily how to work out the stars and
everyt h i n g ? (scf11 p o s i n t line 162). She also report e d that she saw the planet Mars.
Although not voiced in her interview, this suggest s at least a moderate interest in the topic
248
of the visit, as relatively fe w studen t s were motiva t e d to use the star charts provid e d by the
plane t a r i u m.
Early on in the analysis He len was chosen as an exampl e of a studen t with
considerable prior knowledge. However, she actual l y showe d a relati v e l y incom p l et e
understa n d i n g of several astronomy concepts such as the Sun?s appare n t move me n t ,
gravity and star compos ition. A lthough she appeared to be mode rately interested in space
and astron o m y , Helen? s person a l inter e st in the topic was not as high as several other
studen t s , such as Fatima or Botho. Despi t e this, the vis it some h o w made a signifi c a nt
differ e n c e to her unders t a n d i n g of aspect s of astro n o my . As well as a numbe r of basic
?fact s ? that she reme mbe r e d as a result of the visit, such as names of st ars and facts about
the planet s , Helen seemed to have acquir e d a greater understa n d i n g of (and an ability to
explai n the move me n t s of) the sun and the mo on and how gravity works within the solar
system. In human constr u c t i v i s t terms he r increa s e d knowle d g e and unders t a n d i n g by
process e s of additio n , emergen c e and diffe ren t i a t i o n were built on a relatively sound
foundation of prior knowledge which was more s ubsta n t i a l than most other student s . Given
Helen ? s high academi c achie v e me n t , it is like ly that her eme r gent knowledg e was greater
than describe d here, as (unlike John) she didn?t voice it.
8.2 Discussion
B r e n d a , Fatima and Helen show some si mila r i t i e s in their lear n i ng in that they all
demonst r a t e d greate r change in their knowle d g e of Big Ideas than the studen t s portra y e d in
Chapte r 7. While the great majori t y of thei r knowled g e was constru c t e d using the process
of addition , they also showed examples of differentiation a nd/or discri mi n a t i o n . They all
appear e d good at rememb e r i n g specif i c facts pr ese n t e d to them durin g the visit , not just
about Big Ideas, but in other areas relat e d to as tron o my . The y also showed some intere s t in
the visit, but none had a strong interest or fascination wi th astrono my . There were also
some differ e n c e s betwe e n them: while Fatima and Helen showe d examp l e s of emerge n c e
in which their pre-ex i st i n g experi e nc e of astron o my was recal l e d as a resul t of their visit to
the scienc e centr e , Brend a did not. Fatima a nd Brenda did not produce very detaile d pre-
visit PMMs, and they presente d basic facts only. In cont rast Helen?s PMM was mor e
extensi v e contain i n g referen c e s to more unusual concepts such as light years, distances and
numerou s facts about planet s . The main differen c e between the three of them wa s that
249
Fatima had many miscon c e p t i o n s prior to her vi sit, Brenda had fewer misconc e p t i o n s but
limited knowle d g e , while Helen had a substan t i a l knowle d g e base.
Looking across all seven portrait students , Brenda and Helen?s (and to a lesser
extent Fatima?s) depth of knowledge of Big Id eas such as gravity, day and night and the
Sun has shown greater change than Nonkululeko?s and Botho?s. This change has resulted
in limite d but crucia l l y differ e n t learni n g . In additio n to the accumul a t i o n of several
additi o n a l facts about astron o my both Brenda and Helen have manage d to build on their
knowl e d g e struc t u r e in limit e d areas , enabl i n g a greater degree of restructuring than was
demonstrated by Nonkululeko and Botho. Neo and John, although th ey did not change
their knowled g e of Big Ideas to any great extent, had sufficien t prior knowl e d g e also to be
able to learn using diffe r e n t i at i o n . While addition was common to all students , only
students with sufficient prior know ledge were able to restruct ure their conceptions in the
relati v e l y compl e x ways demand e d by differ e n t i a t i o n and discri mi n a t i o n . Nonkul u l e k o ,
Fatima and Botho showed the least prior know ledg e of Big Ideas, while Neo, John, Brenda
and Helen showed conside r a b l y mo re. I consid e r this diffe r e n c e a signif i c a n t one which
differen t i a t e s students who gain more from a science centre visit from those who show
more limited knowledg e construc t i o n . Both type s of students learn by the process of
additi o n , but those who are able to learn by the complex process e s of differe n t i a t i o n (and
discri mi n a t i o n ) appear to show greate r learn i n g , and this is depend e n t on the degree of
prior knowle d g e the studen t posses s e s . Howeve r , indivi d u a l s learn in very differ e n t ways,
and although prior knowledge pl ays a part, students? own pe rsonal interests and other
facto r s not examin e d here also influe n c e their learni n g . With the except i o n of
Nonkulul e ko , all students had some degree of in ter e s t in the visit , and the conte xt of each
study site reinfo r c e d their intere s t to some extent . In terms of scien t i f i c literacy, all students
improv e d their basic knowle d g e of astron o m y (?know i n g a lot of science ? ) while only
Fatima (and possib l y Nonkul u l e k o ) showed any improv e m e n t in cultur a l scienc e litera c y
(Shen, 1975).
This chapt er has descr i be d in detai l three students in terms of both wha t they knew and
how they learned about astronomy during their vi sit to a science centr e . It compl e t e s the
main findings of the study which show the comp lexity and idiosyncratic nature of learning
during a school visit. Learni n g is such a comple x phenome n o n that althou g h I have been
able to identif y trends in le arning and relate them to asp ects of students? prior knowledge
and inter e s t , I have not deter mi n e d strai ght for w a r d relation s h i p s between particul a r
250
feature s of learne r s (e.g. the comple x i t y of the PMM) and how they lear n. Chapt e r 9 draws
the thread s of the findin g s presen t e d in Chapte r s 4 to 8 togeth e r , a nd highligh t s issues of
impor t a n c e ident i fi e d .
251
Chapter 9
9 Discussion and Implications
This chapter provides a summary of my study which draws discussion from the
preceding chapters together and examine s implications for the fields of
astronomy education and museum research, for the science centres involved in
the study and for methodology. It ends w ith a list of recommendations derived
from the implications and sugge stions for future research.
9.1 Introduction
Since Champagne?s article three decades ago (Cha mp a g n e , 1975) there have been
questio n s regard i n g whethe r people visiti n g scienc e centre s actua l l y learn anythi n g or
whether they ?just? enjoy themsel v e s . Diffe ring views on learning have been presented,
from those of Uzzell (1993) and McClaf f e r t y (1995) , who sugges t e d that tradit i o nal
learnin g of facts does not occu r, to those of Fa lk & Dierkin g (1992) and Anderson & Lucas
(1997 ) who sugge s t e d that to look for tradi t i o n a l learn i n g is inapp r o p r i a t e for such conte x t s
and the definition of learning should be broa dene d . Although the latte r view has had more
influe n c e over the past decade , some scholars still cont est whether learning does occur and
have propos e d using the term ?outco me s ? instea d of ?learn i n g ? (Ansba c h e r , 1998b, 2002a) .
The main aim of my study was to determi n e th e extent to which learning occurs during a
school visit to a science centre. My finding s demons t r a t e eviden c e for learnin g by a
number of psycho l o g i c a l proce sses in the cognitive, affec t i v e and conati v e doma i n s .
My thesis has highligh t e d aspects of l earni n g about astro n o my and proces s e s of
learni n g in museu ms and scien c e centr e s . Disc ussion of my findings is prese n t e d in the
followi n g sectio n s , in order of impor ta n c e :
? B i g Ideas in astronomy : how they can be us ed to structur e lear ning the content of
astron o my in the contex t of a science centre .
? H o w learnin g occurs during a visit to a scienc e centre from a human constr u c t i vi s t
persp e c t i v e and the role of prior knowledge a nd interest in learning .
? M e t h o d o l o g i c a l Findin g s
252
? M i s c o n c e p t i o n s in astrono my and how a scien c e centr e can addre s s (or impar t )
such miscon c e p t i o ns .
? S c i e n c e Litera c y .
? T h e role of vocabula r y in learning .
In this chapt e r I exami n e each of the above issues and demonstrate how the findings in
previ o u s chapt e r s help to answe r my resea r c h quest i o n s and illumi n a t e impor t a n t topic s
and concer ns in the areas of astron om y and informa l learni ng . In the penult i ma t e sectio n , I
addres s the implic a t i o n s of the findin g s for the science centres involve d in the study and
for the school curriculum. Fi nally I reflect on my study, bo th from a methodo l o g i c a l and
persona l viewpo i n t .
9.2 Big Ideas in astronomy
9.2.1 Gravity
As explained in Chapter 5, I used the notion of Big Ideas in astronom y as a way to
struct u r e how I exa min e d studen t learni n g in a science centre . For a full underst a n d i n g of
astro n o my , by far the most impor t a n t conce p t for studen t s to learn about is the concep t of
gravit y (Zeili k , 1994). Gravit y differ s from the ot her Big Ideas in that it is the only concep t
which is a true theor e t i c a l notio n , rathe r than a tangib l e objec t (e.g. a star) or a compar a t i v e
perception (e.g. size and scale). Gravity was addressed differently in the two study sites: at
the planetar i u m there were a number of vi deo sequences showing its effects and the
presen t e r refer r e d to the concept many ti mes. At HartRAO there were several activities
which involv e d gravit y , but the educato r s did not draw as much attent i o n to its import a n c e
in astronomical processes as was done in the planetarium. My discussion of how the
studen t s colle c t i ve l y learn t about gravi t y con centr a t e s on HartRAO as the students visiting
there were the ones who were questio n e d a bout their knowledge of gravity, while only
Helen at the planet a ri u m discuss e d gravit y in de tai l , as the resul t of her writi n g about it in
her PMM.
I found that all studen t s except Nonkul u l e k o had some idea about gravit y as a pullin g (or in
some cases they refer r e d to it as a pushi n g ) forc e prior to their visit to the centr e , and that
they did not signi fi c a nt l y chan g e this idea after the visit . I attri b u t e d this to the fact that the
centres dealt with the effects of gravit y rather than attempt i n g to provid e a defini t i o n for it.
What did change after the visit was that as a gro up the student s moved to a more scienti f i c
253
knowle d g e of gravit y : prior to the visit 93% were classifi e d as being at knowledg e levels 1
and 2, where a s after the visit 77% were at levels 2 and 3. Si milar l y , there was a trend
towards knowing that gravity on Jupiter is high and that the Moon has relatively low
gravity . However , althoug h there was a trend toward s greate r scient i f i c knowle d g e of
gravity , few student s after the visit really understood what causes gravity. These findings
sugges t that by a series of activi t i e s and de mons t r a t i o n s , studen t s ? unders t a n d i n g of gravit y
can be encouraged to change, but that a more coherent and integrat e d effort needs to be
made by the centre if true concep t u a l chang e is to occur. This suggest i o n reinfo r c e s the
view of Feher (1993) who, in her critique of Borun ? s work on gravi t y misco n c e p t i o n s in a
museu m (Bor u n et al . 1993) sugges t s that only by using ? networks of exhibi t s ? (p 247) can
visit or s make bette r conne c t i o ns for thems e l v e s and ?reor ga n i z e their ideas and const r u ct
new unders t a n d i n g s ? (p 247). In this respec t , HartRAO is making a good contri b u t i o n to
this type of learning : it provi des a series of related exhibits on the theme of gravi t y which
appear to assist students to make some of the connecti o n s suggested by Feher. However,
my view is that the exhi b i t s could thems e l v e s be more concept u a l l y connec t e d with each
other , and encou r a g e the learne r to relat e (for examp l e ) thei r experie n c e with the rockets to
the Coke tins and the gravit y scales . In the contex t of visits by school group s , this would
mean that the HartRA O educa t or s could draw at ten t i o n to the relat e d n e ss of the activ i t i e s
and encoura g e the student s to themsel v e s form connections. I don? t suggest this would
guarantee a greater underst a n d i n g of gravity , as such a comp lex and non-int u i t i v e concept
is always going to be difficult to comprehe nd. Howeve r , it does give a greater chance for
underst a n di n g to take place, especi a l l y if bui lt upon by the teacher on return to school.
9.2.2 Stars and the Sun
T h e stars and the Sun were addres s e d in very differ e n t ways in the two study sites: they
for me d a consta n t backd r o p at the plane t a r i u m, and aspec t s such as names , compo s i t i o n ,
for mat i o n and distan c e were discus s e d . In cont ra s t at HartRA O activi t i e s using the Sun?s
shado w and image as well as an activi t y relat e d to star size and densi t y were demon s t r a t e d.
My study found that while student s were able to provi d e a great e r scientific knowledge
about the Sun after their visit (change from 26% to 50% of st udents at knowledge level 3)
there was less chang e in the case of stars (c hang e from 6% to 9% at knowle d g e level 3)
althoug h student s did move away fr om a mini ma l knowle d g e level. To some extent this is
to be expected, as my criteri a for knowledge level 3 for star s was more rigorous than for
the Sun, and while both study sites provid e d dem on s t r a t i o n s or activ i t i e s on both, studen t s
254
are likel y to be able to relat e more easil y to the Sun given its impor t a n c e in daily life in
compari s o n to stars (Sharp 1996). For student s to gain a full scien tific understanding of
stars in terms of their compo s i t i o n , posit i o n a nd size is likely to be beyond the scope of
either the planet a r i u m or HartRA O unless these concep t s are priorit i s e d as being import a n t
issues for school groups to learn about, which is probabl y not the case. In my analysi s I
have used stars and the Sun as a Big Idea in astronomy which I consider crucial for
studen t s to know about. I would sugge s t that the centr e s id ent i f y funda me n t a l knowl e d g e
about the star-S u n conce p t that they want student s to gain unde rs t a n d i n g of and use this as
a basis for the devel o pme n t of a web of activ i t i e s relat e d to the concept . In the same way
that a series of relat e d exhib i t s or activi t i e s on gravi t y appea r e d to chang e stude n t s ?
knowledg e quite effectiv e l y , so too could a similar theme d set of items on stars and the
Sun. These might include existing presentati o n s such as star a nd Sun distance and
appea r a nc e and uses, as well as addit i o na l evidenc e for their simi l a r i t y (sta r s as suns and
vice versa) and their massiven e s s and the gravity they possess . Again, I strongl y
recomme n d follow - u p at school by the teacher .
9.2.3 The Solar System
Whi l e I ident i fi e d the Solar Syst e m as a Big Idea, both the planetarium and HartRAO used
it more as an organ i si ng prin c i pl e than as a speci fi c topic with i n thei r displ a y s or as a
concep t in astro n o my . At the plane t a r i u m the present a t i o n was called the Solar System
show, while at HartRAO facts about the planet s and the relative distances was presented
when the Solar System was ?taken for a walk? to demons t r a t e its scale. My specif i c
quest i o n i n g about the Solar Syste m of the st uden t s who visite d the planet a r i u m was not
very effec t i ve , and the resul t s do not demonstr a t e any insights into the eight stud e nt s ? idea s
of the concep t ?Solar System? . Instea d , mu ch of what students know about the Solar
Syste m was captu r e d fro m their Perso n a l Meani n g Maps, where the major i t y liste d the
names of the nine planet s and someti me s some facts associ a t e d with each. In these,
stude n t s showe d they could reme mb e r a numbe r of addit i o na l facts about the plane t s , such
as Mercur y ? s proxi mi t y to the Sun, Jupite r ? s size and Pluto?s remotene s s . There is very
little research published on peopl e?s knowle d g e of the Solar Sy ste m, so compar i s o n of my
findings with the literature is not possi b l e . My resul t s ther efore do provide some baseline
data on childre n ? s knowle d g e of the Solar System to add to the work by Treagus t and
Smith (1989 ) and Sharp (1996 ) .
255
As a Big Idea, I would sugges t that the con cept of the Solar System not be confine d
to factual infor mation about the planets which make up our Solar System, but stress it as a
princi p l e in cosmol o g y , as was done in the planet a r i u m, that other stars are likely to have
their own solar systems . This is relativ e l y recent science whic h is not in the current school
curric u l u m but is highly releva n t to both the pl ane t a r i u m and the sort of resea r c h carri e d
out at HartRAO.
9.2.4 Size and Scale
I consi de r that if stude n t s leave an as tronomy science centre with only two major
impre s s i o n s they should have a better under s t a nding of both gravity a nd the size and scale
of our plane t , the solar syste m and unive r s e . From a concep t u a l viewpo i n t theref o r e , I
belie ve that gravi t y and size and scale are the most import a n t Big Ideas relate d to
astron o my for studen t s aged 12 to 15 years. Both the study sites incorpor ated size and scale
into sever al aspec t s of their work, with the ca lculat i o n of the distance to the near est star
(outsi de the solar syst em) at the planet a r i u m and the pacing out of the distan c e s betwee n
the solar syst e m plane t s (at HartR AO ) being th e most promin e n t . My findin g s showe d that
students? appreciation of aspect s of size and scale change d quite substantially from the pre-
to the post-v i s i t . Prior to the visit 80% were at knowle d g e level s 1 and 2, while after the
visit 53% were at levels 2.5 and 3, sugges t i n g that the sites were able to effect not just an
increas e in knowled g e (such as the relativ e sizes of the Earth, Sun and Moon) but a deeper
understanding of scale. A clear example of this is where Julius referre d to the Sun being
much bigge r than the star s in his pre- v i s i t inte r vi e w , where a s after the visi t he state d ?[th e
Sun is] much closer than other stars that? s why we see them as if they? r e very small
becau s e they are much furth e r away from the Earth and the sun is the close st to the Earth
that?s why we see so bright lights? (swo36posint 030).
As I discussed in section 5.4.4, there are di fferent views in the literature whether
students of age 12 to 15 year s are capable of comprehending the massi v e sizes and scale
involve d in astrono my . Given my finding s th at student s are able to improve their
unders t a n d i n g of size and scale af ter the visit I would claim th at for students of this age
group it is appropriate to cover this concept . Sadler (1998) disputed this, but provided
limit e d evide n c e in his paper as suppo r t , and examin a t i o n of the test he conduc t e d has
proved diffi c u l t , as it was never ma de widely available (Hufnagel, 2002). Like the concept
of gravity , the approac h by the study sites to provide a variety of e xperiences related to
256
size and scale is likely to be the most appr opriate way of building students? knowledge and
underst a n d i n g of size and scale. Such an appr oach is supported by constructivist pedagogy,
in which new knowledge is mediated by an edu cato r , who provide s a form of scaffol d to
enabl e learni n g to take place .
9.2.5 Day and Night
I n Chapte r 5 I identi f i e d the concep t of day and night as a signif i c a n t idea in astron o my
which, in contra s t to the Big Ideas, has been extensiv e l y research e d over three decades. At
both the study sites, the spinnin g of the Earth wa s referr e d to but not ove rtly stressed: at the
planet a r i u m the star projec t o r speede d up the moveme n t of stars acros s the sky on sever a l
occasi o n s to demons t r a t e a partic u l a r po int. At HartRA O the spinni n g was briefl y
discu s s e d when the ima ge of the Sun was projec t e d , and when the sundia l was being
demons t r a t e d . My findin g s show that there wa s little differe n c e in student s ? underst a n d i n g
of day and night as being due to the Earth?s spin from pre- to post-visit, with only two
studen t s mo ving from knowle d g e le vel 1 to eithe r level 2 or 3. I believe that part of the
reason for this limite d change was becaus e pr ior to the visit 74% of the student s alrea d y
underst o o d the cause of day and night. Further , as the demonstr a t i o n s and activiti e s at the
study sites did not highlight th e Earth?s spin with respect to night and day, students who
struggled with the concept prior to their visit were un likely to change it as a result of the
visit. The fact that three studen t s did change their views may have had more to do with
emerge n t knowle d g e than knowle d g e at the visit being impar t e d . It is also impor t a n t to
note that one student (Batsile ) changed from level 3 to level 1; a rare case of Big Idea
knowle d g e being confus e d by the visit. My findings confirme d those of several other
resear c h e r s (e.g. Sadler 1998; D ove 2002) that student s of earl y teenage are aware of the
cause of day and night, and that the most co mmon miscon c e p t i o n is that it is caused by the
Earth orbiting the Sun. My findings on this Bi g Idea however are more revea l i n g in terms
of the use of a model in the resear c h proces s , and the use of terms such as rotate and
revolve , and these issues are di scussed further in section 9.4.1.1.
9.2.6 Moon Phases
L i k e ?day and night? peopl e ? s under s t a n d ing of the phases of the Moon has been
extensi v e l y resea r c h e d over the past few deca des, with most studies showing that true
unders t a n d i n g of why they occu r is rare unless specific in struction has been given.
Although the Moon was discussed at both study sites the pha ses themselves were not
257
explain e d by the presen t e r s , and I though t it un likely that students would have a differen t
underst a n d i n g after the visit of why the phases occur. This was borne out by the findings,
which show that 73% of the st udents (n=34) are at knowledge level 1 and 2 prior to the
visit, and 74% (n=19) at the same knowle d g e level after the vis it. Findings by other
researc h e r s show that people hold a number of misconce p t i o n s about the Moon phases
which are persist e n t despit e instru c t i o n , and I discuss some of these misconceptions in
section 9.5.
9.2.7 Satellite/Parabolic Dish
H a r t e b e e s t h o e k Radio Astrono m y Observatory is dominated by the presence of the radio
telesc o p e , and part of my invest i g a t i o n involv e d whethe r stud ents? knowledge of a
parabo l i c dish would impro v e as a result of th e visit. At HartRAO , as well as being shown
how the radio telescope works students were given the opportunity to use whisper dishes
whose parab o l i c shape works in a simil a r way to the telescope. The only published
resear c h study using whispe r dishes determi n e d that many visitors were unable to use their
prior knowle d g e of reflec t i o n and focuss i n g to explain how they work (McClaf f e r t y 1995).
My findings show that while 92 % of students were at knowledge levels 1 and 2 prior to the
visit, 42% had changed to levels 2.5 and 3 af ter the visit, sugges t i n g some shift in their
own conceptions. Of the 42%, 23% (5 students) did need consid e r a b l e probin g for me to
determi n e the extent of their knowl e d g e about th e dish, and it is possibl e that the student s
were more conduc i v e to probin g in the interview af te r the visit. They were now meetin g
me for the thir d time , and mayb e felt more at ease to explai n their thinki n g to me . This
issue is explore d furt her in section 9.4.1.3.
My sugges t i o n is that HartRA O should take the opportu n i t y to work more with the
artefac t of the parabol i c dish so that student s leave the site with a greater underst a n d i n g of
how it works . Durin g the whisp e r dishe s activi t y , the educa t o r does relat e the shape to the
same shape of the reflec t o r in a torch and car headli g ht s, but also brings in the idea
(joki n g l y to some exten t ) th at stude n t s are using a cell phone. Jokes howeve r , can have a
detrime n t a l effect on learnin g . Examin i n g lear ning in a planetar i u m, Fisher (1997) found
that visito r s who saw a humoro u s show scored lower in a post- v i si t test than those who saw
a non-hu mo r o u s show. The educat o r also provi de s a small sign which explain s how the
whispe r dish works, as well as pointi n g at the radio telesc o p e and making a referen c e to
DSTV. Howeve r , I sugges t that additi o na l activities could be provi de d that relat e the
258
whispe r dishe s to DSTV satell i t e dishe s (w hich all students are fa mili a r with), other
satel l i t e dishe s (such as those of telec o m m u n i c a t i o n s as seen on the hill when appro a c h i n g
HartRA O ) , parabo l i c solar cooke rs, as well as the 26 metre telescope itself. Depending on
the grade level of the children , discussi o n co uld relate the light refl ecte d by a torch
reflec t o r to sounds reflec t e d by the whisper dis h, electro ma g n e t i c signals of satelli t e dishes,
heat reflect e d for cooking , to the faint signal s fro m stars. In this way a series of activit i e s
(like those I have explai n e d for gravit y or stars and the Sun) could build students
knowledge of parabolic dishes fr om a variet y of perspe c t i v e s to enable them to leave the
site with an enhanced knowledg e of dishes.
9.3 How Learning Occurs
C h a p t e r 6 explain e d how I used my fra mewo r k of human cons t r u ct i vi s m theo r y to analy se
my data, and Chapte r s 7 and 8 descri b e d in detail how seven case study students learned
duri n g thei r visi t . In human cons t r uc t i vi s t th eor y learn i n g takes place by small incre me n t a l
additio n s of knowled g e by people, and, le ss commonly , by more substant i a l knowledg e
restr u c t ur i n g (Mint z e s et al . 1997).
9.3.1 Cognitive Learning
F r o m a cogni t i ve viewpoi n t and based on previ o u s huma n const r u ct i vi st studi es I used 6
categor i e s of learnin g : additio n , emerge nce, differentiation, discrimi nation,
recont e x t u a l i s a t i o n and superor d i na t e lear ning . Table 9.1 shows the total number of
instanc e s of these categor i e s of learning as shown by the case study student s . Each instanc e
of learni n g was record e d in either the studen t ? s PMM or intervi e w , and in a few cases an
examp l e of learn i n g might be recor de d twi ce . For examp l e Fatima noted on her PMM that
the closes t stars to our solar syst e m were Al pha and Proxim a Centau r i and that fact was
coded as addition. Further, she also briefl y discus s e d the same issue in her inter vi e w , and it
was again coded as addition . However, the table gives an approximate estimation of the
frequen c y of cogniti v e lear ning categories identified.
Table 9.1 Summary of cognitive learning by case study students
Learning
category
Nonku
luleko
Botho Neo John Fatima Brenda Helen Totals Percen
tage
A dd itio n 14 13 14 5 14 18 11 89 68
Emer g e n c e 2 0 0 12 2 0 2 18 14
Dif f er en tiatio n 0 1 6 3 0 2 5 17 13
Disc r imin a tio n 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 4 3
259
Learning
category
Nonku
luleko
Botho Neo John Fatima Brenda Helen Totals Percen
tage
Reco n tex tu alisat
io n
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1.5
Sup ero rd in ate
Lear n in g
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.8
Total 16 14 22 20 18 21 19 131 ~100
T h e first featur e that Table 9.1 demons t r a t e s is that learn i n g at th e study sites was highly
indivi d ua l i se d and variab l e across the case st udy students, most of whom showe d a range
of learnin g types across the cogniti v e , aff ect i v e and conativ e domain s . In the cogniti ve
doma i n addi t i o n refe rs to simpl e acqu i s i t i o n of facts about pheno me n a which a learner
acqui r e s incre me n t a l l y over a period of time. In my study, this was by far the most
common for m of learning at both study sites. With the except i o n of John, all case study
studen t s showed from 11 to 18 exampl e s of a ddit i o n as a resul t of thei r visit , and this
category forms two-thirds of the learning types obs erved across all the case study students.
The impor t a n c e of the proce s s of addit i o n cannot be undere st i ma t e d . One of the common
percept i o n s of learnin g in scie nc e cent r e s is that ?real ? lear ning as shown by the acquisition
of knowle d g e is mini ma l , while other forms of learni n g such as a change in attitu d e or
feeli n g s is more commo n (e.g. Ansba c h e r , 2002b; Jarvis & Pell, 2005 ). Howev e r , my study
confir ms what Anders o n (1999) demons t r a t e d in his Austra l i a n study, that the increme n t a l
learn i n g of numero u s indiv i d u a l facts accoun t s for a substan t i a l propor t i o n of the learnin g
when a school stude n t visit s a scienc e centr e . Further , my study suggest s that these facts
are accumul a t e d as a direc t resul t of the visit , witho u t any prepar a t i o n by the teache r or any
follow-u p activiti e s after return to school . Others (e.g. Braund, 2004) have recommended
that follow- u p activi t i e s are an importa n t pa rt of the learni n g proce s s , but my study
sugges t s that learni n g in the form of additi o n will still occur in scienc e cent r e s such as
those visi t e d as stand- a l one visit s .
Discounting John?s figures, the second most common category of learning was
differ e n t i a t i o n , in which the learne r crea tes a more complex understa n d i n g of a
phenome n o n by acquiri n g new concept s subsume d under a more inclu s i v e conce p t . With
the exception of Nonkululeko and Fatima , all case study stude nts showed at least one
example of differe n t i a t i o n , with two student s , Neo and Helen, demonstr a t i n g 6 and 5
insta nc e s respe c t i v e l y . As I expla i ne d in Chapt e r 6 the main diffe r e n c e betwe e n addit i o n
and diffe r e nt i at i o n is that in the forme r , the f acts are learnt in isol ati o n, and the student
does not make any conne c t i o n betwe e n them, so they remai n isola t ed addit i o na l facts .
260
However , in the case of differe n t i a t i o n , the knowl e d g e is combi n e d into a whole resul t i n g
in the devel o p me n t of under s t a nding of a concept in terms of the subsu me d parts . Huma n
const r u c t i vi st resea r c he r s refer s to a categ or y such as (progre s s i v e ) differen t i a t i o n as
involvin g a greater degree of knowledge restructuri ng, unlike the weak restructuring of
additi o n . Howeve r , it is the proces s of additi o n which initia l l y allows the develo p m e n t of
differentiation, as the different pieces of knowle dge first need to be acquired before the
restru c t ur i n g can take place. My study sugges t s that diffe r e nt i a t i o n is not a very commo n
for m of learn i n g in the study sites , but it does occur , and this is again impor t a n t for the
kind of learni n g that takes place in scienc e cen tres. A challenge for them would be to focus
on encoura g i n g this type of learnin g . Data from my study sugges t s that studen t s can
substan t i a l l y restru c t u r e their knowle d g e , partic u l a r l y in th e areas of gravity, the Sun, stars
and the Solar System.
Emerg e n c e , refer r i n g to recal l of previ o u sl y learne d knowle d g e from me mory , was the
catego r y of learni n g with the same percen t a g e frequen c y as di fferentiation, but its
relativ e l y high frequen c y is due to one stude nt, John, who showed the highest number of
instan c e s of emerge n c e of a ny students across the study. Disc oun t i n g John, emergen c e is a
relati v e l y rare for m of learni n g , on a par with both discrimi n a t i o n and reconte x t u a l i s a t i o n .
As explain e d in Chapter 6, it is possibl e that some instan c e s of emerge n c e were classi f i e d
as additio n , as I normall y only coded items as emerge n c e when student s specifi c a l l y
refer r e d to reme m b e r i n g pheno me n a from previ ous experience. In contrast, Anderson in
his study of school studen t s learni n g about elect r i c i t y and magne t i s m in a scienc e centre
(Ander s o n 1999) made conject u r e s when he identifi e d emergenc e , assumi ng tha t the
knowle d g e was pre-ex i s t i n g in th e student?s memory, and that the activities students were
undert a k i n g cause d it to be re trieved. Although the frequency of emergence was low in my
case study studen t s (excep t John), the proces s of emerge n c e is one which is likely to be
impor t a n t in museu m learn i n g and needs furt her investi g a t i o n . John is clearly a special
case. His portrai t in Chapter 7 clearly s hows severa l inst an c e s of how the interv i e w
question s remi nd hi m of not only what he lear n t in the scien c e centr e, but also how the
centre exhibi t s remi nd e d him of pr evio u s l y learnt knowledge. For example when he is
asked about some of wha t he ha s written in his post-vis i t PMM:
Interviewer: Uh hmmm. Okay really you? v e writt e n quite a few things here,
you menti o n e d that the red giant s , the white dwarf s an d the
Quasa r and you said the trip remin d e d you of those thing s . Tell
me a littl e bit about that.
261
John: Ja they remin d e d me of so me of the things that I was thinki ng
about like I rememb e r e d the red giant was huge in size, it has way
mor e mass th an our size and as the one lady said, she said that our
sun couldn ? t have a supern o v a becaus e it? s too small co mp ar e d to
those other stars and then the the white dwarf, it? s small in size
and it spins faste r .
(vho 16 p o s p mm 001- 0 0 3 )
In this sequenc e , John combine s knowle d g e that he acquired from the Ha rtRAO (?lady said
? that our sun couldn?t have a supernov a ? and the experie n c e ?being a star? on the
turnt a b l e) toget h e r with his prior knowledge about the size of a red giant to explai n why
the small dense star spins faster than the larger star. What is partic u l a r l y in teresting about
John is that he is both knowled g e a b l e and arti culate enough to explain how he used his
prior knowle d g e and what he had learnt at HartRAO to explain a new phenome n o n .
Discri mi n a t i o n , where stude n t s ident i f i e d simil a rities and differences between associated
concepts, was rarely shown by students in my study. However, all students who showed
discri mi n a t i o n were studen t s who demons t r a t e d improv e me n t in their learni n g or were at
level D in their pre- and post-vi s i t analysi s of Big Ideas (Table 7.1). These studen t s
include d Fatima, Helen and Brenda, as well as Paul and Richar d . The princi p a l way in
which studen t s showed discri mi n a t i o n was by specif y i n g simil a r i t i e s and differ e n c e s
betwee n the planet s in the solar syst em, for exampl e Fatima stated this in her post-v i s i t
inter v i e w :
Fatima: The astro n o m e r at the Plane t a r i u m said Mercu r y , Venus and
Mars, they all have one thing in common becaus e they are more
solid , and then Jupit e r , Satur n and Uranu s and Neptu n e , they are
mor e gaseou s and then Pluto they ? r e not so sure becau s e it? s like
the odd one out.
(scf1 5 p o s p m m 11)
The other main way in which discri mi n a t i o n wa s demons t r a t e d was by studen t s noting the
differ e n c e betwee n ?livin g ? and ?dead? stars when these were discussed at HartRAO during
the turnta b l e activi t y . Althou g h I have identi f i e d discrimi nation as a relatively uncommon
for m of knowled g e restru c t u r i n g it is (like di fferen t i a t i o n ) likely to be an importan t type.
Huma n constr u c t i v i s t resear c h sugges t s that greater knowled g e rest ru c t u r i n g result s in
conce p t s being retai n e d in the long- t er m me mor y (Pear s al l et al . , 1997).
Recon t e x t u al i s at i o n is the proces s in which a student modifies thei r understanding of a
concept as the result of a vi sit, but does not improve on their knowledge or understanding
in the process (Anderson 1999). In my study it occurred relatively uncommonly and, of the
262
case study studen t s , only Neo showed exampl e s of it. Of the other parti c i p a n t s in my study,
recontex t u a l i s a t i o n mainly occurred in the A and B Big Idea categor i e s .
Reconte x t u a l i s a t i o n , althoug h not me rely the addition of new fact s, does not appear to be a
strong form of knowledge restructuring in the same way that differentiation and
discrimi n a t i o n are. Anderson (1999), although he id enti f i e d it in his st udy, sugges t e d that it
could be argued that it is mere ly a form of differ e n t i a t i o n , an d not a separate category of its
own. However , I do find it a useful catego r y in th at it ident i fi e s when stude n t s are thin k i n g
about a conce p t in the conte x t of the visit , but not making any substan t i a l change to their
knowle d g e of that concept . For example Ntobe ko knew in the pre-vis i t intervi e w that a
satel l i t e dish point s to a satel l i t e in space . Howeve r , after visiti n g HartRA O and seeing the
radio telesc o p e she was less sure about where a DSTV dish points t o, she thought it might
be ?space and stars?, or to a spaceshi p ? she wa sn?t reall y sure. This is an example of how
the visit has caused some confusion in the student?s mind about some thing they did know
beforeha n d , and are now less certain. This sort of concept u a l confus i o n is discuss e d in
some detail in section 9.5.
Among the portra i t studen t s supero r d i n a t e learni n g was demonst r a t e d only by Brenda
(Table 9.1), and I found only two example s of it in other 27 students (section 6.3.6),
sugge s t i n g it is the least co mmon form of cogniti v e learnin g in the study. Anderso n did not
use a categor y of superor d i n a t e learnin g in his study, and my findings suggest that it is not
easily demo n s t r a t e d in an informa l learn i n g enviro n me n t . Supero r d i n a t e learni n g involv e s
a significant and rapid shift in understanding of a new and inclus i v e co ncep t , and this is
diffi c u l t to achie v e in a museu m durin g a short visit (Renn i e , 2001; Welli n g t o n , 1990) .
One of the implic a t i o n s for scien c e centr e s which emerg e s from my study is that
while additio n is likely to be the domi nan t for m of cognitive learni n g , centre s should make
effor t s also to promo t e lear nin g which involve s more substa ntial knowledge restructuring.
Althoug h my study does not make any claims for long-term learning, other research
suggests that significant knowle dge restructuring is likely to promo t e more perma n e n t
learni n g in the long-te r m me mory (Pears a l l et al. , 1997).
9.3.2 Affective and Conative Learning
A l l studen t s in the study showed severa l ex ampl e s of affect i v e learni n g (Table 9.2).
The main types of affect not ed in the case study students were enjoyment of (or wonder
263
about) differ e n t aspect s of their visit, specif i c aspect s of the trip that they found person a l l y
impo r t a n t to them, and issue s relat ed to as trono m y in the infor ma l learni n g enviro n me n t
(such as television news) that they had noticed .
Table 9.2 Summary of affective and conati ve learning by case study students
Learning
category
Nonku
luleko
Botho Neo John Fatima Brenda Helen Totals
Affective 9 5 9 10 8 4 7 52
Conative 0 1 1 1 1 2 3 9
Totals 9 6 10 11 9 6 10 61
Many schola r s have sugges t e d that the affect i v e doma i n is of great im por ta n c e in learnin g
(Alsop and Watts 2003), but relatively few st udi e s have exami n e d it in the infor ma l
learning environment, and those that have ma inl y invol v e d gene r al muse u m visi t o r s and
fa mily learning rather than school groups (D ierking 2005). Dierking suggests that (with
respe ct to learn i n g ) the affec t i v e doma i n compr i s e s motiv a t i o n a l , emoti o n a l and perso n a l
satisf a c t i o n , elemen t s which corres p o n d to so me of the affect i v e issues I examin e d .
Table 9.3 and Table 9.4 show the activi t i e s and demons t r ations at the study sites
which students enjoyed most. At HartRAO the three most popular activities were the water
rocket s , the star turnta b l e and the whispe r dishes . It is impor t a nt to stress that these were
activities, which probab l y accoun t s for their popula r i t y , and the findin g suppor t s the notion
of stude n t s wanti n g to have fun durin g their visit . The findi n g s on cogni t i ve and affec t i v e
learni n g sugges t that HartRA O has achie ved a successful balance between the
entert a i n me n t and educat i o n aspec t s of their sc hool visits, where stude nts have had fun and
learnt at the same time. At the plane t a r i u m the most enjoyable presentations were those
involv i n g the stars.
Table 9.3 Activities at HartRAO whic h resulted in affective learning
Activity/presentation at HartRA O Enjoy Germane Wonder Total
R o c k e t s 15 4 19
Star turn t a b l e 4 3 2 9
Whisp e r dish 5 2 1 8
Planet facts, Solar Sy ste m for a walk 3 3 6
Slide show 4 2 6
Radio Tele s c o p e 3 2 5
Mars & Mars show 2 2 4
264
Activity/presentation at HartRA O Enjoy Germane Wonder Total
S i z e and scal e 4 4
Star descr i p t i o n s 4 4
Sun fact s , Sun dial 1 3 4
Coke cans and scale s 2 1 3
Satel l i t e lase r 1 1 2
Lectu r e r s nice 1 1
Telesc o p e s 1 1
Table 9.4 Presentations at the planetariu m which resulted in affective learning
Presentation at planetarium Enjoy Germane Total
S t a r s in nigh t sky 3 3
Stars spin n i ng 3 1 4
Const e l l a t i o n pictu r e s & name s 2 1 3
Dust cloud phot o s & forma t i o n of SS 2 2
Mars phot o s 1 1
?How much is out there ? 1 1
More plane t s 1 1
No studen t s expres s e d rema rk s classi f i e d as ?wonder ? . The data in this table include s
comme n t s from stude n t s at St. Augustine School.
Part of the impor t a n c e of the entert a i n i n g activ i t i e s is that they can be relat e d to situat i o n al
inter e s t . Situa t i o n al intere s t is the abil i t y of th e conte x t (?sit u a t i o n ? ) to devel o p in peopl e an
inter e s t in theme s being prese n t e d (Hidi & Harac h i e w i c z , 2000) . While situat i o n al inter e st
can occur in any educa t i o n a l envir o nme n t , it ha s been studi e d mainl y in the classr o om and
less in museu ms (Dier k i n g , 2005) . Limit e d resea r c h suggest s that student interes t in the
topic of astron o my might be relatively high (Jarma n & McAl ee s e , 1996). While a scienc e
centr e cannot predi c t what degre e of perso n a l inter e st each stude n t will enter with, it can
aim to impar t situa t i o n a l inter e st to its visit o r s . If it is succe s s fu l in doing so, this may in
turn raise stude n t motiv a t i o n for the topic , and lead to great e r achie v eme n t in scien c e , a
desperat e need in developi n g c ountries such as South Africa. It appears that hands-on
acti vi t i e s are effec t i v e ?tri g g e r s? of situa t i o n a l interest for many students who visited
HartR A O . Furth e r rese ar c h could aim to exami n e such trigg e r s in detai l , and determi n e
what can be done to maintai n such interes t to promote motiva t i o n .
265
The case study students showed few exampl es of learnin g in th e conativ e domain.
However , the conativ e learnin g shown by Both o and Helen, where they actively followed
up issue s discu s s e d at the study site are furth e r areas which relat e to inter es t and
motivati o n , and should be develope d by the science centres. Si milar l y , the conflict
experien c e d by Brenda between the science pr esented at HartRAO and her own religious
belief s has potenti a l for further action . The pl ane t a r i u m direc t o r once remar k e d that, durin g
a presen t a t i o n , if studen t s ask her ?where is God in all this?? she does not answer the
questio n direct l y (C. Flanaga n pers. comm . ) . Inste a d , such a questi o n might be an
oppor t u n i t y to spark some addit i o n a l think i n g on the part of the student , to encour a ge
debat e after the show. In thes e ways the conative aspect of learnin g can be encoura g e d , as
Braund and Reiss?s defini t i o n of learni n g (2004 ) inclu de s aspec t s of the conat i v e
dime nsi o n , such as ?an increas e in the capacity to reflect? a nd ?the desire to learn more?
(p.5) .
While previ o u s studi es exami n i n g th e relationship between education and
enter t a i n me n t have taken diffe r e n t posit i o ns (as I elabor a t e d in secti on 2.5), the findi n g s
from my study sugge s t that they are entir e l y compat i b l e , confir mi n g the conclus i o n s of
some researc h e r s (e.g. Brunell o , 1992; Falk et al ., 1998).
9.4 Methodological Findings
M y study shows a number of findings relate d to the method s which are import a n t to
highlig h t as part of this chapter .
9.4.1 Issues in Interviews
9.4.1.1 Models
I n Chapte r 5 I descri b e d how, when I ques ti o n e d studen t s about day and night in the
interv i e w , I introd u c e d a model of the Sun (a torch) and the Earth (a small globe) and
asked them to explai n their initia l thinki n g about why the Sun moves across the sky using
the model. I found that nearly one third of the student s changed thei r (initia l l y rather
confused) explanation of the cause of day and night as soon as they were refer r ed to the
model . With the model as a ?prop? these stud e n t s were able to give a more scien t i fi c
explana t i o n for the phenome n o n , which they were unable to do without it. This is highly
signi f i c a nt for other resea r c h st udies in the area of astronom y , as the subject involves an
understa n d i n g of relative l y co mplex three-d i me n s i o n a l inte ractions between bodies. My
findi n g s sugge s t that if quest i o n s invol v i n g a ppare n t or relativ e motion are asked of people
266
either by quest i o n na i r e or inter v i e w in th e absen c e of a suppo r t i n g mo del , the resul t i ng
answe r s may relat e to their me mor y of a diag ram in a book or at a le ctur e . In the case of
?day and night?, responde n t s of an appropri a t e age (probab l y 10 years and older) need to
decide whethe r it is the Earth orbiti n g the Sun or the Earth spinning on its axis which
causes day and night. Instead of engaging with the questi o n in a meanin g f u l way,
respon d e n t s in my study began by answer i n g what appear e d to be the first idea that came
into their mind, which in 13 cases out of 20 was that the Earth re volves around the Sun
(altho u g h their use of langua g e was someti me s unclear ? see section 9.4.1.2). Only when
the model was presen t e d did they then sugges t that day and night are due to the Earth? s
spin or rotat i o n rathe r than its orbit . The f act that only 3 of the 16 peer-rev i e w e d research
studie s of day and night used mode ls as part of the data collection process suggests that
their data may be biased towards their res pondents? ?first thought s? which may well be
erroneous. Wagenschein?s notion of synthetic stupidity (Engestr?m 1991) which I
intro d uc e d in Chapt e r 2 is releva n t here. In Wa gen s c h e i n? s premi s e the repre se n t a t i o n s of
the Earth and Sun that students learn about in the class r o o m ar e comple t e l y unrela t e d to the
Earth and Sun which they experie n c e in everyda y life. Engest r ? m argues his case for
students ? represen t a t i o n of the Moon phases, but I consider it ap pl ic a b l e to the case of day
and night too. In respo n s e to my quest i o n , instead of thinking through a response which
makes sense in terms of a 24-hou r cycle of ni ght and day, students think back to an image
of the Earth orbiting the Sun, and res pon d with ?empty senten c e s ? (Enges t r ? m 1991, p
155) about the Earth ?revol ving around the Sun?.
The clear implic a t i o n this has for studie s of astron o my learni n g is that resear c h e r s
need to ensur e that they are colle ct i ng data that is salie nt for the parti c i p ant s rathe r than the
first thoug h t s that enter their minds . This impli c a t i o n would mean that such studies need to
involve not just student s res ponding verbally, in writing or by drawing a diagram but by
talkin g throug h their thinki n g with the help of a model. Thi s is what Schoult z sugges t s in
his arti cl e (Sch o u l t z et al . 2001) critical of the methods of Vosniad o u and collabo r a t o r s ,
though he also critique s the nature of the interview itself. In her rebuttal, Vosniadou
main t a i n s that ther e is a place for quest i o ni n g in the absen c e of an artefact such as a globe
(Vosni a d o u et al . 2005), to investigate children?s thinki ng in the development of their own
menta l model s . While this might be relev a n t fo r the inves t i ga t i o n of me nta l model s in the
young childre n (ages 6 to 11) Vosniad o u and Schoult z were working with, by the time
children reach age 12 it is hi ghly likely they have a more sophisticated view of basic
267
astrono my concep t s (Roald and Mikalse n 2001, Trumpe r 2001a) . Using models is
theref o r e likel y to be the most appropr i a t e way of e ngender i n g response s to question s
posed by researc h e r s , to avoid th e dangers of synthetic stupidity.
9.4.1.2 Language
I explained in Chapter 3 that my research di d not use theori e s around language to provide a
concept u a l fra mewo r k for the study. However , during the process of data collection I
found that in some cases student s ? inabili t y to commun i c a t e effect i v e l y in English meant
that they were not able to e xpre s s thems e l v e s as fully as they might have done in their
home langua g e . Where possibl e I gave them the chance to express themse l v e s in the
langu a g e they were mo st comfo r t a b l e with (when I was accompa n i e d by an interpr e t e r ) ,
but none availed themsel v e s of this opportu n i ty. Indeed I found on o ccasion that students
were unable to use common seTswana words fo r some of the astronom i c a l phenome n a we
were discussing 17 , and were more comfor t a b l e using Englis h .
There was one aspect of languag e , whic h was common to students across all
langua g e s and all school s , and that was the use of the terms for orbit and spin. In Chapte r 5
I discus s e d the diffic u l t y many studen t s had in expres s i n g themse l v e s particularly the use
of ter ms such as rotate and revolve to descri b e the passag e of the Earth around the Sun and
the turning of the Earth to cause day and night. In 1998, Parker and Heywood noted that
?the recog n i t i o n of this probl e m is consp i c u o u s by its abse nce in re sear c h litera t u r e ? (1998,
p 516). I consid e r that this is still the case, as althoug h some instr u c t i o n a l mater i a l s 1 8
recogn i s e the issue and attempt to assist stude n t s in their under s t a n d i n g only Camer o n
(2003) and briefly Stahly et al. (1999) have referre d to it in a resear c h contex t . If Parker
and Heywoo d found it to be a proble m among English trainee teachers one can i magine
that the issue is likel y to be great e r for teen age students in South Afri c a , many of whom are
learning in another language. The issue has si gnif i c a n t impli c a t i o ns for teache r s as well as
the educators at the planeta r i u m and HartRAO , as they need to use strat eg i e s to clari fy the
terms for studen t s . My recomm e n d a t i o n would be that only the terms orbit and spin should
be used, so that the simila r - s o u n d i n g revolve and rotate are avoide d in the contex t of
17 I have a basic know ledg e of seTsw an a and chec k ed stud e n ts ? know ledg e of words such as ?moon? and
?star ? if their home lang u ag e was seTs w an a .
18 e.g. the Natio nal Cen ter for Math ema tics and Scie n c e at the Univ e r s ity of Wisco ns in -Mad is on and the
Capital Region on Scien c e Educ a tio n Partn ers h ip See the Mode ling for Unde r s tan d in g in Scien c e Educ a tio n
course at www.wcer .wisc.e du/N CI S LA /MUS E /in d ex .h tm and
www. cr sep .o rg/Per p lex ing Pair s/An o th erPerplex in gPair . Ro tatio n and Rev o lu tio n12 110 2.pd f
268
teachi n g about astron om y . Parker and Heyw ood (1998) found however, that even when
this strateg y is adopted the teacher s in their study still conf used the two terms
concep t u a l l y. Clearl y , more effect i ve techni qu e s would need to be implemen t e d , and I
have referre d to two helpful program m e s in footnot e 18.
The issue of confusion of terms however , also has signifi cant implications for
researchers into people?s understanding of astr ono my concep t s . Resear c h e r s who choose to
use only questio n n a i r e s or intervi e w s for determi n i n g peopl e ? s conce p t i o n s of the
processes of rotation and revolution, without a model present , are likel y to gather
unreliable data, and mu ch of the data already coll e ct e d and inter p re t e d over the past thre e
decade s may be partly flawed . A critica l revi ew of the studies conduc t e d is therefo r e a
strong recomm e n d a t i o n from this thesis.
9.4.1.3 The interview as a situated event
In Chapter 3 I explained how I planned and ex ecu t e d struct u r e d interv i e w s with studen t s
during my data collec t i o n , and in Chapt e r s 5 to 8 I descri b e d the finding s emanat i n g from
the intervi e w s . Althou g h I consid e r I adopt e d the ri ght strategy for my data collec t i o n , my
analys i s shows that the struct u r e d nature of the inter vi e w s was somew h a t const r ai n i n g, and
in retros p e c t I consid er that I could have been less struct u r e d and more probing in most
cases. This would have made some of the da ta more fruitf u l for deeper analys i s , and
probab l y enable d some discou r s e analys i s in ad dit i o n to the conte n t an alys i s I carrie d out.
I also need to recogn i s e that my interv i e w s were a situate d even t in the sense used
by Schoul t z and collea g u e s (Schou l t z et al . 2001). The setting for intervie w was at the
school , in an office or classr o o m, despit e the fa ct that I was examin i n g infor ma l or out-of -
s c h o o l learnin g . I, as the intervi e w e r , was th e domi nant party who acted like a teacher,
along with my intell e c t u a l and cultural capital. Further, I wa s askin g quest i o n s , some of
which were possibly abstract and difficult, adding further to the imbalance in power
relat i o n s in the inter v i e w situa t i o n. For these reasons, Schoultz and colleagu e s would
argue, the interv i e w was not an objective method of enquiring into the intervi e w e e ? s mind
to probe their knowled g e of astrono m y concept s , but ?simp l y anoth e r so cial practice, and a
highly problema t i c one as well? (2001, p 116) . However, when conducting the interviews,
I consi d er I ameli o r a t e d some of the possi b l e conte x t u al l y alien aspects of the situa t i o n ,
and was closer to the type of intervie w conduc t e d by Schoult z and colleag u e s than the
interv i e w s of Vosnia d o u that they critiq ue . I did not start by firing a barrage of questions
on abstract astronomy at the students , but asked about the forthcomi n g (o r recent) visit, in
269
order to set the scene for the inter vi e w . As in the case of Schou l t z , the globe was on the
table at the start of the inter v i e w , and I in tro d uc e d this mo del into the quest i o ni n g at an
early stage, which I hoped provide d a further ?prop? for students to assist with their
answer s . I also used the student s ? own product i o n s , their previou s l y - d r a w n Persona l
Meani n g Map as an additi o na l suppo r t which provi d e d a focus for quest i o n i n g later in the
intervi e w . I therefo r e acknow l e d g e the nature of the intervi e w proces s , and althoug h I
interp r e t the result s from a cognit i v e viewpo i nt , like Candel a (2001) I also accept the
socioc ul t u ral cont e x t of the interact i o n whic h gave rise to them. Further, the use of
intervie w s allowed students to ?hear? what they thems e l v e s were sayin g , as in all
inter v i e w s I repeat e d at least some of their words after they utter e d them, or repea t ed the
idea they were talkin g about. This allowe d them to reflec t on what they had just said, and
in severa l cases this caused studen t s to ch ange their explan a t i o n . Although it is equally
possib l e for studen t s to read over what they have writt e n in a questi on n a i r e , there is no
?othe r voic e? (the inte r vi e w e r ) to repea t thei r ideas , and facil i t a t e th e process. This would
appear to be a clear advant a g e of intervie w s over question n a i res for encouragi ng refl ect i ve
thinkin g while respond i ng to questions, again di scou r a g i n g Wagens c h e i n ? s empty
sentences (Enges t r ? m, 1991) .
My final comment on the intervi e w process is th at in retrospe c t I consider I should have
interv i e w e d the educat ors at HartRA O and the pres e n t e r at the plane t a r i u m , in order to gain
an unders t a n d i n g of their persp e c t i v e of what they were tr ying to get across during the
visits by the school groups. Although my observa tions made at the centres were recorded,
my inter pr e t a t i o n s of what the prese nt e r s were doing may be quite different from their own
intentions. A future study of this sort should follow met hods recommended by researchers
such as Cox- Pet e r s e n et al. (2003), where not only students and teachers are intervie w e d ,
but also the museu m staff . In this way a cleare r contex t u a l bac kground could be obtained
for the study, which would provid e a rich er descript i o n of the overall findings .
9.4.2 Personal Meaning Mapping as a technique for data collection
As explained in Chapter 3, I chose to use P MM as a techn i q u e to compleme n t my other
data collect i o n method of structu r e d intervi e w s . The structu r e d interv i e w s focuse d on the
Big Ideas in astronomy , and could be regarded as a for m of ?pre- and post-test? related to a
tradi t i o na l expec t a t i o n of cogni t i v e learn i n g . In contrast , the method of PMM creates less
expec t a t i o n of what the learne r should know, in that there are no questions to respond to,
270
and is a less ?threatening? fo rm of assess me n t . Devel o p e d by John Falk in the late 1990s,
PMM is analo g o u s to conce p t mappi n g , but is more suita b l e to the muse u m envir o n me n t ,
and require s no prepara t i o n on the part of th e partic i p a n t s (Adelma n and Falk 2000, Falk
2003). From this point of view PM M is an ex treme l y releva n t method for use in a study
based on a constr u c t i v i s t episte mol o g y , as it allows the partic ipant complete freedom in
writi n g what they like on the map, and cons tructing their knowledge in their own way.
Falk (2003) recomme n d s a partic ul a r method of analysi n g PMMs, which involve s looking
acros s four dimens i o n s of learni n g : exte nt , breadt h , depth, and mas t ery . While Falk
suggests that PMMs can be analysed both qua nti t a t i ve l y and qualit a t i v e l y , most of the
studie s in which they have been used have been domi na t e d by quan ti t a t i v e tec hniques (e.g.
Adelma n et al . , 2000; Falk & Storksd i e c k , 2005; Falk et al ., 1998). My study being
qualit a t i v e in nature, implie d that I forego extensi v e quantit a t i v e analysi s , and make
indivi d u a l learn e r s the units of analysi s . In this respect the personal meaning maps and
accompa n y i n g interv i e ws were very helpful , as th ey provide d details of the sort of learning
not captur e d in my struct u r e d interv i e w s . In additi o n , alth ough not analysed for all the
dimensio n s suggeste d by Falk, I was able to us e the PMMs to assist with some descriptive
stati s t i c a l data, such as the numbe r of astrono mi c a l vocabul a r y words ( extent in Falk?s
termi n o l o g y ) used by each parti c i pa n t in th e study. I found no partic u l a r drawba c k s in
using PMMs as one of my data collecti o n methods, but I have the followin g
recomme n d a t i o n s for their use by future resear c h e r s :
? W h e r e possib l e , spend adequa t e time in pre li mi n a r y analy si s of the PMM prior to the
initi a l inter vi e w . Simil a rl y , spend adequ a t e time in anal y si s of the PMM befor e the
second round of data collec t i o n , and prior to the second intervi e w . Unfortu n a t e l y , in the
sequence of data collecti o n i nvol v e d in museu m visit s , this is not always possibl e .
? I n a pilot study, experi me n t with the two alternatives of handing the original PMM
back to the parti ci p a n t s for addit i on / c o r r e c t i o n and aski ng them to complet e a new
PMM. Falk strong l y recomme n d s the for mer for museum vi sito r s , for ethica l reason s
due to their time constr a i n t s and the inconv e n i e n c e they are being put to. For school
groups time is less of an issue and they are ?used to? formal and informa l testin g as part
of their school work. A compari s o n betwee n these two altern a t i v e s might therefor e be
of value.
? I t would be worth doing some addit i o na l ?t esti n g ? of the techni q u e as part of the
piloting . For example, if a P MM is given to a group of pe ople, who then repeat the
271
proce d u re so me time later , with no inter v e nt i on between the two processes, is there any
differe n c e between what people complet e on the PMM? To what extent does the very
act of comp le t i n g a PMM result in possib l e changes in people?s thinking about the
topic?
? I t would also be worth resear c h i n g the techni q u e as a possible teachi n g tool in a simi la r
way to how concept maps are used in the classro o m (McClur e et al ., 1999).
Advant a g e s of Person a l Meanin g Mappin g are that the techni q u e doe s not have to be
taught , that it is congru e n t w ith constr u c t i v i s t pedago g y , and th at its infor ma l natu r e is
less intru si ve in the class r o o m.
9.5 Misconceptions
Chapter 2 showed that many studies conducte d on learning over the past three decades
have confirme d that people hold numerou s misconc e p t i o n s about various aspects of
astron o my . Some of the studie s identi f i e d th e misconc e p t i o n s only, while others showed
that despite some for m of interve n t i o n , many of the misconc e p t i o n s remain e d persis t e n t .
My study did not set out to ident i f y and catal ogu e misconce p t i o n s , but it does show that
most of the stude n t s hold misco n c e p t i o ns simil a r to those identified by previous
resear c h e r s . Howeve r , I do not wish to discus s my finding s in the light of researc h e r s such
as Vosniad o u and Brewer (1994) and Roald and Mikalse n (2001) who investi g a t e d
misco n c e p t i o n s as the princi p a l objec t of the resea r c h . Neithe r do I think it appro p ri at e to
use researchers who looked at a ?before an d after instruction? scenar i o (Parke r &
Heywoo d , 1998; Trundl e et al. , 2002) as a basis for discuss i o n . All these studie s , as well as
Minda Borun? s study of grav i t y in the museu m (Boru n et al . , 1993) appear to be based on
the fact that miscon c e p t i o n s are a faulty form of scientific knowledge which needs to be
rectif i e d . Instea d , I take Jeremy Roschell e ? s view that all prior knowledge (including the
miscon c e p t i o n s ) for ms a basis for the constr u c t i o n of scienti f i c knowled g e , and that we
need to find ways of incorpor a t i n g the misconce p t i o n s into the scienc e rathe r than trying to
eradic a t e the ?fau lty? notions (Roschel l e , 1995; Smith, diSessa & Roschel l e , 1993). This
view is consis t e nt with my concep t u a l fram ewo r k of human constru c t i v i s m, where I have
attempt e d to demonst r a t e how student s build thei r knowled g e , even if so me of the resulta n t
cons t r u ct i o n is not scie nt i fi c al l y corre c t . I th ere f o r e prese n t two exam ples of how students
built on their prior knowl e d g e to const r u ct new conce p t i on s of astro n o mi c a l pheno me n a .
272
Both examp l e s are repre s e n t a t i v e of the sort of misconc e p t i o n s student s held, or in the case
of Neo, acquire d .
In the first examp l e I show how Tlotl o had mi scon c e p t i o n s about gravit y prior to
her visit, but what she experi e nc e d during the visit change d them to a more scient i f i c a l l y
accept a b l e notion of gravit y . Before her visit, Tlotlo knew that gravit y is a force which
?puts things down?, but she be lieved there is no gravity on the Moon or on Jupiter. Her
evidenc e for there being no gravity on the M oon was the fact that she saw televisi o n
images of Mark Shuttl e w o r t h : ?he wasn?t like on land , he was floatin g around?
(tsw02p r e i n t 154). Althoug h Shuttle w o r t h went to the Intern a t i o n a l Space Statio n many
studen t s seemed to believ e he went to the Mo on, and used his floating as evidence that
there is no gravi t y there . Tlotl o did however think there might be gravity on the Sun, using
her own person a l theor y that ?becaus e you get heated and then you just, it grabs you, the
heat? (tsw02 p r e i n t 170). After her visit, Tlotlo had very differe n t id eas about gravity . She
still believed that things might float on the Moon, but having seen pictur e s of Neil
Ar mstro n g on the surface , she now conside r e d th at the gravit y there is very low. Like
many stude n t s , and as descri b e d in Sectio n 4.2.6, Tlotlo thought peopl e needed to wear
boots on the Moon to keep them on the surfac e . She also now though t that the gravit y on
Jupiter is high, and gave a short descrip t i o n of how the Sun and Jupiter, with their strong
gravity, fought for asteroid s , one of which cras hed into Jupiter. Her interpretation of an
explanation at HartRAO in c onnection with asteroids and (probab l y ) Co me t Hale-B o p p
crashing into Jupiter is likely to have been the source of this idea, althou g h it is also
possibl e she played with the ?Cos mic Pinbal l ? exhibi t in which one makes a comet crash
into Jupite r (see Sectio n 4.2.4) . In her post-v i s i t PMM she stated that ?the sun and Jupite r
are likely to have the same amount of grav ity ? (tsw02p o s 9), but dur ing the intervie w she
elaborated on a new understanding of gravity ?Well I think gravity is caused by the ... like
maybe if somet h i n g is big then there ? s more gravit y ? (tsw02 p o s i n t 1 8 9 ) and decide d that
the Sun, as it?s bigge r would have more gravi t y than Jupiter . Clearl y , Tlotlo had a very
differe n t concep t i o n of grav ity after the visit, and he r understanding had changed
substa n t i a l l y toward s a scient i f i c under s t a n d i n g . It is impor t a n t to note that Tlotlo built on
her relati ve l y na?ve prior knowl e d g e about gravi t y to do this, and also that she still retai n e d
some miscon c e p t i o ns . She thought that boots he lp to hold you to the Moon? s surfa c e in an
enviro n me n t of low gravit y , and she did not realise that everythi n g has gravity, however
small . These misco n c e p t i o n s howev e r are rela ti v e l y ?mino r ? compa r e d with the ones she
273
had before the visit, and it is likely that fu rthe r exposu r e to for mal or infor mal teaching
about gravity would assist he r underst a n d i n g still furthe r .
In the second examp l e I show how Neo acquir e d a miscon c e p t i on during her visit.
In Chapter 7 I describ e d how Neo added to he r knowled g e of the Sun and differe n t i a t e d it
so that the end result was a more complex understanding of th e Sun, its scale with respect
to the Earth, and the notion of sunspot s . Duri ng this process of add ition and differen t i a t i o n ,
Neo changed her ideas in the followi n g ways. Pr ior to the visit she kne w a mixture of facts
about the Sun: that it is a star, but bigger , th at it is bigger than the Moon and furthe r away
and that it can be ?used? for growin g plants . She stress e d the heat of th e Sun (instea d of its
light) , both for the growin g of plants and the reason why stars are not visibl e in the day.
She gave errone o u s estima t e s of room tempe r a t ur e , boili n g water and the Sun?s
temper a t u r e , showin g little unders t a n d i n g of th e concept of tempera t u r e. After the visit she
showe d simi l a r knowl e d g e of the Sun and tempe r a t u r e as she had in the pre-vi s i t interv i e w ,
though she now inflate d her estima t e of th e Sun?s surfa c e to 5 billio n (degr e e s ) . In
additio n , she now referre d to somethi n g she was shown at HartRAO: a sunspot. Although
she had some idea of the size of the sunspot she had seen ? she referr e d to the fact that 100
Earth s can fit into it ? her understanding of what a sunspot consists of was some what
flawed . She seemed to think that the spot is at the centre of the Sun, and that it is ?a bit
cold?. Howeve r , her limite d concep t i o n is really to be expect e d . The sunspo t was
demons t r a t e d by the HartRA O educat o r using the Sun teles c ope proje ct i ng the image on to
card, and Neo would have used any prior knowle d g e she had about the Sun, togeth e r with
what the educator was explai ning, to build her own concep tion of the sunspot. It so
happened (on the day she visited HartRAO) that this sunspot wa s lying in the middl e of the
Sun?s disc so it is natura l that Neo would thi nk it is the Sun?s middle. She would also have
heard the educa t o r sayi ng that the spot is a coole r part of the Sun (see Chapt e r 4), and Neo
interpreted this as being ?a b it cold?. The other fa ct that Neo reme mber ed about the Sun in
her post-vis i t intervie w was that the Sun is goi ng to expand, contract to become a dwarf,
and ?ther e will be no sun anymo r e ? .
What Neo has construc t e d is a greater, but partially flawed, knowledge of the
concept Sun. Althoug h she could be said to ha ve acqui r e d a misco n c e p t i o n durin g th e visit,
her knowle dge has clearl y incre a s e d, and it is quite possi b l e that she will reme mb e r the
idea of the sunspo t for the futu re. Neo therefo r e , is an exam ple of a student who learnt
from her visit, even though her pre- and pos t-vis i t mean ?score? for Big Ideas hardly
274
changed . The implic a t i o n of Neo?s experi e n c e is that the visit was able to build on her
prior learni n g . Like 12 other studen t s in the study, she alrea dy had above-average
knowle d g e of Big Ideas, and was able to inco rporate further knowledge into her existing
fra mewo r k . I do not conside r it of concern that she left HartRAO with a misrepr e s en t a t i o n
of sunspots as the ?cold mi ddle of the Sun?. The fact that sh e has now seen and can discuss
a sunspo t sugge s t s that she has the basis for furthe r learn i n g about them. In Roschell e ? s
terms we can ?expec t learn i n g to occur throu g h gradua l refine me n t and restru c t u r i n g of
small comp on e n t [ s ] ? (1995, p 43), and it is for this reason that follow- u p by the teacher
back at the school is so im porta n t (Griffi n , 2004), althoug h it wa s limite d or non-ex i s t e n t in
my study (Chapte r 3).
The HartRA O educa t o r provi d e d a clear demons t r a t i o n and explana t i o n of
sunspot s . So me student s (such as Richard and Julius ) lear n e d a bout sunspots without
acquiring a misconception while most others (s uch as Douglas and Judy) never mentioned
sunsp o t s in their post- v i s i t PMM or interview. I therefore s uggest that the learnin g about
sunsp o t s varie d acros s the studen t s who visite d HartRAO, and the extent of learning or
acqui si t i o n of a misco n c e p t i o n was littl e di ffe r e n t to other lear n i ng envi r o n me n t s .
However, there was one incident that t ook place at HartRAO which appeared to promote
the acquis i t i o n of miscon c e p t i o n s by studen t s . My evide n ce for it is limit e d , but I draw
attent i o n to it here to demons t r a t e how an attempt to relat e stude n t s ? under s t a n d i n g to
somet h i n g they are famil i a r with may cause confus i o n for some student s . At HartRAO
durin g the water bottl e rocke t activ i t y the educ ato r sugges t e d that the student s experi me n t
with differen t proporti o n s of ai r and water in their bottles to see how high they can make
the rocket go. This is a good activi t y to get st uden t s to make informa l hypoth e s e s and test
them out. Howeve r , I observ e d that during th e discu s si o n at the end of the activi t y the
educator describe d the water pu t inside the rocket s as ?fue l?, and although she explained
why a particular proportion of wa ter to air inside the bottl e resu l t e d in great e r pres s ur e and
highe r altit ud e reach e d , stude n t s were left with the impre s s i o n that a simil a r proce ss takes
place in real rocket s (e.g. notebo o k 1 page 49 7/6/03 ) . Neo explai n e d after her visit that
?I?ve learnt that the rocket or let me say the space shuttl e needs, it doesn? t need more
maybe like air or gas or more air or more gas in it, it just needs a little bit of gas so that the
gas and the air can combi n e toge t h er so that it can lift off. So if it?s too much gas or if
there?s no gas it can?t go up? (swo42po s i n t 157). Her explana t i o n suggest s that Neo
actuall y thinks that differe n t propor t i o n s of fu el or gas in a space shutt l e are neede d in the
275
same way that water and air are combi n e d in the water bottle . Anothe r studen t (from St
August i n e s School , not used in my main study) wrote in his post-v i s i t PMM ?In order for
spacec r a f t to fly it needs approx i ma t e l y a quarte r of fuel and the air should take the space?.
Althou g h these are only two exampl e s , they de mons t r a t e the danger of an analog y which is
taken literal l y by student s , re sulting in them acquiring a misconception about rockets and
their fuel requir e me n t s .
What does this tell us then about misco n c e p t i o n s in the museu m envir o n me n t ? It
suggests that with a variety of activities around a th eme, conceptual change can occur as a
resul t of a visit to a scien c e centr e . It al so accept s that mi scon c e p t i o ns can be acquir e d
during a visit to a centre, but finds that, as Roschell e ( 1995) has suggested and Anderson
(1999) later demons t r a t e d , such misconc e p t i o n s are a steppin g stone towards more
compr e h e n s i v e and (idea l l y ) sc ientif i c knowledg e . As Falk a nd Dierking (2000) lamented,
there is a dearth of research study in this area, and my findings help to add to the growing
body of knowle d g e of how miscon c e p t i o n s are worked with in an informa l settin g .
9.6 Science Literacy
The extent to which students improved their science literacy was vari able. In section 2.6 I
identi f i e d Shen?s classi f i c a t i o n of scienc e literacy (Shen, 1975) as being the most
approp r i a t e for museum learn i n g . Evide n c e from my study suggests that students did
?know more scienc e ? after thei r visit, and could be said to have improved their basic
knowled g e of astrono m y . While Re nnie?s statement that deep science learning probably
does not occur durin g a scienc e centr e visit may be true (Renni e , 2001), my study sugges t s
that some cogni t i ve under s t a n di n g can occur for the majori t y of studen t s . Some stude n t s
(notab l y Nkulue k o and Fatima ) also increa s e d th eir cultur a l scienc e litera c y , whereb y they
showed a greater appreciation of the achieveme n t s of scienc e . Both the planet a r i um and
HartRAO aligned their activit i e s and present a t i o n s to the conte n t of the schoo l curri c u l u m
rather than to notio n s of scien c e liter a c y . Measur i n g the achiev e me n t or otherw i s e of
science literacy goals may therefore be more appropriate for visits by groups other than
school students .
9.7 Role of Vocabulary
S t u d e n t s ? use of astronom y - r e l a t e d vocabula r y wa s discusse d in section 7.4. The numb er of
words studen t s used in their PMMs varied conside r a b l y (mean 20.3, standard deviation
276
7.5), and all student s except Ntobek o increa s e d their vocabu l a r y in their post-v i s i t PMM.
There appear s to be no relati o n s h i p betwee n vocabulary and knowledge of Big Ideas,
except in the case of catego r y D studen t s , who a ll used a larger number of words tha n their
peers. On this basis I suggest that coun tin g words in PMMs is not a reliabl e way of
assessin g students ? concept knowledg e or understanding, as propounded by Falk (2003).
9.8 Critical Reflection of the Research Process
C a r r y i n g out resea r c h in museu m envir o n me n t s is notori o u s l y diffic u l t , as any attempt to
acquire empirica l data tends to inter fe r e with the lear n i n g exper i e nc e of the visit or (Alle n ,
2002; Falk & Dierkin g , 2000). My strategy was to acquire pre- and post-visit data using
personal me aning maps and intervie w s to de termin e whether students had construc t e d
knowl e d g e as a resul t of the visit . Simil a r me tho d s have been used succe s s f u l l y in many
studies of museum learnin g (e.g. Adelma n et al ., 2000; Cox-Petersen et al ., 2003) but it is
unclea r to what extent the proces s of data co llection has altered visitors? perceptions of the
experien c e . While I did not encounte r any diffi c u l t i e s in gathe ri n g my data, I need to
accept that my collecti on of PMM data followed by one-to - one intervi e w s with a select i on
of studen t s was likely to have highli g h t e d the im port a n c e of the visit. Six of the 34 studen t s
I interviewed (e.g. Banyan a in section 5.7.1) showed that my visit had caused them to do
extra prepar a t i o n for the visit, which they might not have done if I had not intervie w e d
them. Altho u g h these numbe r s are relat i v e l y low (18% of student s ) my finding s may
possibly overesti ma t e the overall learning th at took place in the study. Although my study
did not examine teache r s and their work with the classes my role could be regarded as that
of a teache r , and my wor k with the stude n t s as preparat i o n for and follow-u p after the visit
which was not done by the stude nt s ? accompa n y i n g teach e r s .
One stran d of curre nt infor ma l learn i n g resea r c h stres se s the impor t a n c e of
deter mi n i n g the long- t e r m effec t of museu m visits (e.g. Falk & Dierki n g , 1997; Medved &
Oatley , 2000), and my study might have benef ited from follow-up data collection some
months later. Unfort u n a t e l y the time fra me of the study preclud e d this possibi l i t y , but
gettin g studen t s to write an e ssay abou t thei r visi t seve r al m onth s after the event might be
an approp r i a t e way of findin g out what they reme mbe r . This could be followe d by an
interv i e w to discus s what studen t s had writte n , though analys i s of the data collec t e d would
need to consider the further impact of th e data collecti o n methods on the ?research as
inter v e n t i o n? compa r e d with visits not researched.
277
My study did not involv e a compar i s o n betw een the learnin g taking place at the
planeta r i u m and HartRAO , but a brief commen t on the two sites is pertin e n t here. The
coll ec t i ve lear n i n g desc ribed in Chapter 5 show that stude nt s were able to lear n about Big
Ideas at both sites. Two of the portrait student s who showed an incr eas e in their Big Ideas
knowled g e (Fatima and Helen) visited the planet a r i u m, again sugges t i n g that visits to both
study sites enabled learning. The one area of difference was that the planetarium did not
provid e activi t i e s for studen t s to engage in, ex cep t that they were encou r a g e d to use star
chart s (hand e d out to them) and to obser v e the sky on subsequ e n t nights . Given the
import a n c e of affect i v e learn i n g (such as wonder and enjoyme n t ) I have identif i e d in this
study, the planet a r i u m might consi d e r provi d i n g additi o n a l hands- o n ac tivities for students
as part of their visit exper i e nc e .
9.9 Conclusions and recommendations
A study of this kind has never been conduct e d be fore in South Africa. There has been very
little research into inform al learn i n g , and none combi n i n g it with astro n o my . The
infere n c e s drawn are likely to be restri c t e d to simil a r cont ext s of school visi t s invol v i n g
12- to 15-ye a r - ol d s , scien c e centre s thems e l v e s with simil a r cont e x t s to the planeta r i u m
and HartRAO , in that didacti c methods are used as part of visitors ? experien c e .
This thesi s set out to answe r the follow i n g resear ch quest i o n s:
1. To what extent do students learn in the pr oce s s of a visit to a plane t a r i u m or the
visit or s ? centr e of an astro n o mi c a l obser v a t or y?
2. H o w is the content of astronom y communi c a t e d to student s ?
3. W h a t are stude n t s ? individ u a l experiences of the visit?
4. H o w do students construc t knowledg e during and after the visit?
5. H o w do student s ? interes t s and prior knowle dge affect the learning experience of a
school visit?
While my case study canno t be used to genera lise to other science centres either in
Southe r n Africa or overse a s , I sugges t that th e point s I make can be regar d e d as ?fuzz y
general i s a t i o n s ? (Bassey , 1999). These are stateme n t s with some uncert a i n t y built - i n ,
which acknow l e d g e s the comple x i t y of the natu re of human inter a c t i o n s , and can lead to
both limite d recomme n d a t i o n s and s ugge s t i o n s for furth e r resea r c h .
Answering research questions 2 and 3, I ha ve shown (in Chapter 4) the experience
of a studen t visiti n g a scienc e centre , that it is a unique enco unter for each individual, and
that some of the perce p t i o n s of schoo l visit s found in the science educat i o n litera t u r e are
278
confir me d , while othe r s are chall e nge d . For ex amp l e , stude n t s regar d the visit as a fun
activi t y which will also invol v e learn i n g , confi r mi n g re sea r c h by Falk et al . (1998).
Howev e r , notio n s of full class participation and teach er invol v e me n t in sc hool visit s appea r
to be even less preval e n t than they ar e in develope d countri e s (e.g. Griffi n , 2004;
Storksd i e c k , 2004). Chapter 5 answers researc h question 1: I showed that student s do learn
appreciably during school visits , and I described the main areas of learni n g in terms of Big
Ideas in astron o my . Addres s i n g resear c h questi o n s 4 and 5, and using a human
cons t r u ct i vi st frame w o r k for lear ning, I showed in Chapters 6 to 8 that each stude n t ? s
learni n g expe r i e nc e is uniqu e , and that it is diffi c u l t to predi c t how lear ni n g will occur for
any one individ u a l . I was also able to show th at incre me n t a l addit i o n of facts was by far the
commo n e s t form of cogni t i ve lear n i n g expe ri e n c e d by the student s , and that more
substan t i a l knowle d g e restru c t u r i n g also occu rre d , though less often. I also demons t r a t e d
that student s with a greater prior knowledge of astronomy we re able to show a greate r
degree of knowledg e restruct u r i n g . I furthe r described the importance of affective and
conati ve aspect s of learni n g , and that they need to be taken into accoun t when exami ni n g
how learn i ng occur s at a scien c e centr e . The effect of student persona l interes t on their
ability to learn at a scien c e centre was less clear, and I s uggest that future research
examin e s how situat i o n a l intere s t can be promot e d , to improv e motiva t i o n .
The import a n c e of my study has been in a number of different areas, focusing on
the studen t s invol v e d in school vi sits, and how they learn. First, I have shown that learning
occurr e d at the study sites, and that for some st udent s the sorts of things learnt were in line
with ?acad e mi c ? learn i ng assoc i a t e d with the school curri c ul u m (such as gravit y and stars) .
Other stude n t s learn t littl e academi c factua l knowle d g e but still reme mb e r e d numero u s
facts from the visit which may for m the basi s for future learnin g if properl y followe d up
after the visit. Learning t ook place at the centres despit e the limited involvem e n t of
teache r s ? prepar i n g studen t s fo r or follow i n g up on the visit.
Secondl y , I have shown that all stud ent s both learnt during the visit and enjoyed
thems e l v e s , which provi d e s furth e r evide n c e against the notion that planet a r i a and hands-
o n scienc e centre s are locati o n s for mere entert a i n me n t .
Thirdly, I have shown that prior knowled g e is of key importa n c e in influen c i n g the
extent to which a student was able to restru cture the knowledge they learnt. Students with
extensi v e prior knowle d g e were able to show greater knowle d g e cons truction than those
with limited prior knowled g e . This finding adds furthe r weigh t to the concept of pre-visit
279
prepar a t i o n : if all studen t s had been adequa t e l y prepar e d for their visit they would have
entered the study site with greater prior know ledge which in turn would have enabled a
greater degree of knowled g e restruc t u r i n g .
Fourt h l y , while I have demon s t r a t e d that for some stude n t s , misco n c e p t i o n s were
altere d by the visit, for others the visit had little or no effect. In addition, some students
acquired mi sconce p t i o n s during the visit. Ho weve r , if misconc e p t i o n s are viewed as
stepping stones towards scientif i c knowledg e , th en their altera t i o n or even acquisi t i o n can
assist studen t learni n g .
Fifth l y , I have made so me impor t a n t addi ti o n s to methods used in studies of
learning about astronomy . The importan c e of us ing models cannot be undere s t i ma t e d in
enablin g student s to discuss abstrac t concept s with meaning . Similar l y , researc h e r s need to
pay careful attentio n to the us e of language when discussing concepts such as orbit and
spin.
Sixthl y , I have demons t r a t e d the value of Persona l Meaning Mapping in researc h of
this kind. PMMs have a distinct adva ntage over questio n na i r e s and structu r e d intervi e w s in
enabl i n g stude n t s to ident i fy what they regard as impor t a n t in relat i o n to the topic , rather
than the ideas of the resear c h e r .
Finall y , I have confir me d that a human c onstru c t i v i s t mo del of learnin g is an
approp r i a t e fra mew o r k with which to view l earni n g at a scienc e centr e . The model enabl e s
a resea r c h er to ident i fy the princ i pal ways in which stude n t s lear n , which can inform the
develo p me n t of presen t a t i o n s an d activit i e s at science centre s. In additio n , I have extende d
Anders o n ? s cognit i v e model of HC into the affect i v e and conati v e domain s , highli g h t i n g
the import a n c e of these aspect s of learni n g .
The followin g recomme n d a t i o n s with respect to school visits emanat e from my study:
? A n astron o m y - f o c u s e d scienc e centre should focus on Big Ideas (simi l a r to the ones I
have suggest e d ) to ensure that key concep t s in astro n o my are cover e d . The numbe r and
extent of the Big Ideas would depend on th e natur e of the scie nce centre and its
audie n c e .
? C u r r e n t l y , the scienc e curric ul u m for grades 7 and 8 does not highlight the importance
of all the Big Ideas I have identified fo r basic astrono my learnin g . During the next
280
revision of the curriculum, I recommend that gravit y , size and scale, stars and the Sun,
and the Solar System be given greate r prom in e n c e as key concep t s in basic astron o my .
? T h e scienc e centr e shoul d aim to design a vari ety of differen t acti vities or exhibits
aroun d a limit e d numb e r of Big Idea theme s , so that students are exposed to related
activiti e s which help to build conc eptual understanding around a Big Idea.
? S c i e n c e centre s should note th at all students who visit are capable of learning, and plan
differen t levels of activity which may be appreciated by students of differing ability.
Present a t i o n s should consci o u s l y aim to refer to students ? prior knowledg e , to
encour a g e emerge n t learni n g and knowledge restructuring.
? S c i e n c e centr e s shoul d provi d e writt e n guide l i n e s for teacher s in advance of their visit
(e.g. Braund 2004 and Appendix K).
? C e n t r e s shoul d provi d e visit i n g stude n t s a nd their teachers with follow-up activities
relat e d to cogni t i ve , affe c t i v e or conat i v e lear n i ng . The impor t a n ce of such activ i t i e s is
to ensur e that stude n t s are remi n d e d of th eir visit over a perio d of time, so that it
become s a longer - t e r m learn i n g exper i e n c e .
? G i v e n than all students have idiosyncratic and individua l ways of learning, centres
should aim to strike a balance between di dacti c ?teachin g ? a nd allowing a greater
degree of contro l over stude n t s ? own moveme n t s . At both the planet a r i u m and
HartRAO the focus is on instruct i o n , but to allow students to pursue their own interests
is also impo r t a nt .
9.10 Future Research
M y thesi s has focus e d princ i pa l l y on lear nin g by individ u a l stude nts visiting science
centres, and for ms part of the ?Persona l C ontex t ? (Secti o n 2.8.1) in Falk and Dierking?s
Contextual Model (Falk & Dierking, 2000). This model has only been partly invest i g a t e d
in empir i c al studi e s , and there is consi d er a bl e furth er scope for resea r c h into the
Sociocu l t u r a l and Physica l C onte xt s , parti c ul ar l y in devel o p i n g count r i e s . All three
context s interac t togethe r , and with the notion of ti me, and studies which examine
mediu m- and long- t e r m infor ma l learn i n g are likely to be import a n t , if method o l o g i c a l
issues can be addressed. Rennie and colleag u e s (Rennie et al., 2003) provided a useful
agenda for furthe r resear c h based on the NARST Ad Hoc Committee? s polic y state me n t on
Informa l Sci e nc e Educat i o n . The issues includ e precu r s o r s to learni n g , the physic a l setti n g ,
socioc u l t u r a l factor s , longitu d i n a l researc h , the process of learning and methods used for
281
capturing data. The affective domain is include d in the list, and I would also expand the
proce s s of learn i n g to embra c e the conat i ve , wher e the visit to the centr e is a precur s o r for
action afterw a r d s .
While the above issues are relevant worldw ide, what is partic ularly important in
developing countries such as South Africa is rigorous resear ch in the field. The number of
scienc e centre s is increa s i n g annual l y , but mo s t of the challen g e s faced by the science
cent re commu n i t y relat e to visit or nu mbe r s and practi t i o n e r issues . Resear c h is needed into
how centre s impact on learni n g at school leve l, and how teachers can be encourag e d to
become full partic i p a n t s in th e visit exper i e n c e . Resea r c h al so needs to be conducted into
how previo u s l y disad v a n t a g e d co mmu n i t i e s can be encou r a g e d to visit such centres , so that
the sort of family learni n g found to be so enriching by researchers elsewhere (e.g. Dierking
& Falk, 1994) can be promo t e d . Final l y , infor ma l learni n g needs to be inves t i ga t e d at sites
where the majorit y of the populat i o n reside , su ch as the rural areas and townshi p s , or
where they visit, such as shoppi n g malls . In these ways the field could be expand e d to
addres s issue s of import a n c e to under-developed ?South?, and not just the developed
?Nort h ? .
9.11 Endpiece
I end with three quotations on learning by the students. Wh en asked about the purpose of
the visit, one of the student s in the pilot study suggest e d
I?m not sure becau s e we haven ? t actua l l y l earnt any thin g yet. I still have to see
abou t that .
In his intervie w he demonstr a t e d learning about Jupiter and its Moons, the Moon phases
and the concep t of ?lig ht minutes? , yet he didn?t feel he had learnt anything. Maybe he
needed more ?overt ? learni n g for it to count for him.
In contra s t , Antoni a said that the purpose was
To just learn mor e than we knew alr ead y ? because we learnt the stuff we
knew alread y .
She appea r s to reali s e that th e learni n g is more about deep ening and extending her existing
knowle d g e . For her, emerge n t lear nin g appears to be importa n t .
The last word goes to Julius who tried to expla i n , at some lengt h , the impor t a n c e of
learning and fun:
282
Julius : Ja, I thoug h t about going back there , but becau s e I thoug h t that if
there was mo re ti me we would have learn t even more than what
we?v e lear n t and I think it didn? t only bene f i t me, but I think
many peop l e who went they we re happ y to go there and they
learnt more because ther e? s so me people who they don? t, they
aren? t really intere s t e d , but because they had fun they learn t at the
same ti me becaus e of the fun. Now they learnt becaus e there? s
fun so what I?ve learnt is that most people who learn they learn
throu g h fun so whatev e r they do should be fun so that they can
learn.
Julius? comme n t sums up what learni n g at scienc e centre s should be during school visits,
incorporating cognitive learning and affective fun. He not only learnt and had fun, but he
also learnt that that?s wh at learnin g should be about.
283
References
A d e l ma n , L. M., Falk, J., & James, S. (2000) . Impac t of Nation a l Aquar i um in Baltim o r e
on Visito rs ' Conser v a t i on Attitu de s , Behavi o r and Knowle d g e . Curator , 43(1), 33-
61.
Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (1994). Really Raising Standards . London: Routledg e .
Adler, J., & Lerman , S. (2003) . Getting the Description Right and Making It Count:
Ethical Practice in Mathematics Education Research . In Bishop, A., Keitel, C.,
Kilpatri c k , J. & Leung, F. (Eds.), Sec ond Intern a t i o n a l Handbo o k of Mathema t i c s
Educati o n (pp. 441-470 ) . Dordrec h t : Kluwer Educati o n a l Publish e r s .
Agan, L. (2004). Stellar Ideas: Explor ing Students ' Understa n d i n g of Stars. The
Astronomy Education Review , 3(1), 77-97.
Aikenh e a d , G. (1996) . Scienc e e ducatio n : border crossing into the subculture of science.
Studies in Science Education , 27(1-52).
Aikenhe a d , G. (2000). Renegotiating the culture of school science . In Millar, R., Leach, J.
& Osborn e , J. (Eds.) , Improv i n g Scienc e E ducati o n : the contrib u t i o n of researc h .
Buckingh a m : Open Universi t y Press.
Aikenh e a d , G., & Jegede , O. (1999). Cross- C u l t ur a l Scienc e Educat i o n: A Cogniti v e
Explan a t i o n of a Cultura l Phenome n o n . Journal of Research in Science Teaching ,
36(3), 269-287.
Albanese, A., Danhoni Neves, M. C., & Vicentin i, M. (1997). Models in Science and in
Educati o n: A Critica l Review of Researc h on Studen t s ' Ideas about the Earth and its
Place in the Unive r s e . Science and Education , 6, 573-590.
Allen, R. (Ed.). (2000). New Penguin English Dictionary. London: Penguin.
Allen, S. (2002). Looking for Learning in Visitor Talk: A Methodological Exploration . In
Leinhard t , G., Crowley, K. & Knutson, K. (Eds.), Learning Conversa t i o n s in
Museums (pp. 259-303 ) . Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Alsop, S. (2000). Meeting the needs of lifel ong learne r s : recogn i z i n g a conativ e dimensi o n
in physic s educat i o n . Physics Education , 35(3), 202-208.
Alsop, S., & Watts, M. (1997). Sources from a Somerse t Villag e : A Model for Informa l
Learni n g about Radiati o n and Radioac t i v i t y . Science Education , 81(6), 633-650.
Alsop, S., & Watts, M. (2003). Sc ience education and affect. International Journal of
Science Education , 25(9), 1043-1047.
Ameri c a n Assoc i a t i o n for the A dvance me n t of Science . (1993). Benchmarks for science
literacy . New York: Oxford University Press.
Ameri c a n Assoc i a t i o n for the A dvance me n t of Science . (2001). Atlas of Science Literacy .
Washin g t o n DC: Americ a n Associ a t i o n for the Advanc e me n t of Scienc e / Natio n a l
Scienc e Teache r s Assoca t i o n .
Americ a n Associ a t i o n for the Advanc e me n t of Scien ce. (2005). 2061 Connections
Nove mbe r / D e c e mb e r 2005. Retri e ve d 23 March 2006, from
http://www.project2061.org/publicat ions/2061Connections/2005/2005-11a.htm
Anderson, D. (1999). The Development of Sc ien c e Conce p t s Emerg e n t from Scien c e
Museum and Post-Vi s i t Activi t y Expe ri e n c e s : Studen t s ' Constr u c t i o n of
Knowledge. Unpublished PhD, Quee nsland University of Technology.
Anders o n , D., & Lucas, K. (1997). The Effecti v e n e s s of Orientin g Students to the Physical
Featu r e s of a Scienc e Muse um Prior to Visitat i o n . Research in Science Education ,
27(4), 485-495.
Anderson , D., Lucas, K., & Ginns, I. (2003). Th eore t i c a l Perspe c t i v e s on Learnin g in an
Infor ma l Setti n g . Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 40(2), 177-199.
284
Anderso n , D., Lucas, K., Ginns, I., & Dierkin g , L. D. (2000). Develop me n t of Knowled g e
about Electric i t y and Magnetis m during a Vi sit to a Scien c e Museu m and Relat e d
Post - v i si t Acti vi t i e s . Science Education , 84(5), 658-679.
Ansbach e r , T. (1998a) . John Dewey's Experie n ce and Education: Lessons for Museums.
Curator , 41(1), 36-49.
Ansbac h e r , T. (1998b) . Review of Lear nin g in the Museum, by Geoge Hein. Curator ,
41(4), 285-291.
Ansbach e r , T. (2002a) . Misunde rstandings of Meaning Making. E xhibitionist , 21(1), 1-4.
Ansbache r , T. (2002b). What Ar e We Learnin g ? Outcome s of the Museum Experie n c e .
Informal Learning Review , 53(March-April), not known.
Atwood , R., & Atwood , V. (1996) . Prese r vi c e Eleme n t a r y Teach e r s ' Conce p t i o n s of the
Causes of the Seasons . Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 33(5), 553-563.
Ausubel , D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view . New Yor k: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Ausubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view
(2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bailey, J., & Slater, T. (2003). A Review of Astrono my Educati o n Researc h . Astronomy
Education Review , 2(2).
Bale, J. (2006). It inspired generations of childre n , but now the Planeta r i u m is focusin g on
lesser stars. Retrie v e d July 12, 2006, from
http:// w w w . t i me s o n l i n e . c o . u k / a r t i c l e / 0 , 2 - 2 0 1 7 2 1 0 , 0 0 . h t ml
Bar, V., Sneider , C., & Martimb e a u , N. (1997). Is There Gravit y in Space? Science and
Children ( Ap r i l ) , 38-43.
Bar, V., Zinn, B., Goldmuntz, R., & Sneider, C. (1994). Childre n 's Concept s about Weight
and Free Fall. Science Education , 78(2), 149-169.
Barba, R., & Rubba, P. (1992). A Comparison of Preserv i c e and In-Serv i c e Earth and
Space Scienc e Teach e r s ' Gener a l Menta l Abilities, Content Knowledge, and
Proble m- S o l v i n g Skills . Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 29(10), 1021-
1035.
Barnet t , M., & Morran, J. (2002). Addres s i n g childr e n 's altern a t i v e framew o r k s of the
Moon's phases and eclipse s . International Journal of Science Education , 24(8) ,
859-879 .
Bassey, M. (1999). Case Study Research in Educational Settings . Buckin g h a m, UK: Open
Univer s i t y Press.
Baxter , J. H. (1989) . Childr e n 's unders t a n di n g of fa mili a r astro n o mi c a l event s .
International Journal of Science Education , 11(Special Issue), 502-513.
Baxter, J. H. (1991). A constructivist appro ach to astronomy in the National Curricul u m .
Physics Education , 26, 38-45.
Beetlestone, J. G., Johnson, C. H., Quin, M ., & White, H. (1998). The Science Center
Moveme n t : context s , practi c e , next challen g e s . Public Understanding of Science ,
7, 5-26.
Berg, T., & Brewer, W. (1991). Teache r Awa renes s of Student A ltern a t e Concep t i o n s
about Rotational Motion and Gravity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching ,
28(1), 3-18.
Berk, L. (2003). Child Development . Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bliss, J. (1995). Piaget and afte r: the case of learni n g scienc e . Studies in Science
Education , 25, 139-172.
Block, E., & Rollnick, M. (2003). Wo rds used are underst a n d a b l e ; the way the informa t i o n
is phrased is impossi b l e to underst a n d . In Putsoa, B., Dla mini, B. & Kelly, V.
285
(Eds.), Proceedi n g s of the 11th A nnual SAARM ST E confere n c e (pp. 277-285 ) :
Universi t y of Swazilan d , Mbabane.
Boaler, J. (1998). A Tale of Two Schools: Alternati ve Teaching Approaches and Situated
Learning . In Watson , A. (Ed.), Situat e d C ogni t i on in Mathem a t i c s (pp. 83-92 ) .
Oxford: Oxford Universi t y Departme n t of Educatio n a l Studies.
Boisvert, D. L., & Slez, B. J. (1994). The Relationship betwee n Visitor Charact e r i s t i c s and
Learni n g- A s s o c i a t e d Behavi o r s in a Scienc e Museu m Disco v e r y Space . Science
Education , 78(2), 137-149.
Boone, W., & Rogan, J. (2005). Rigour in qua ntit a t i v e analys i s : Th e promise of Rasch
analysis techniqu e s . African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education , 9(1), 25-38.
Borun, M., Massey, C., & Lutter, T. (1993). Na ive Knowledge and the Design of Science
Museu m Exhib i t s . Curator , 36(3), 201-219.
Braund , M. (2004). Learning science at museums and hands-on centres . In Braund, M. &
Reiss, M. (Eds.) , Learni n g Scienc e Outsid e the Classr o o m (pp. 113-12 8 ) . London :
Routle d g e F a l me r .
Braund , M., & Reiss, M. (2004) . The nature of learning scie nce outside the classroom. In
Braund, M. & Reiss, M. (Eds.), Learni n g Scienc e Outsid e the Classr o o m (pp. 1-
12). London : Routle d g e F a l me r .
Brodie, K. (2005). Textures of talking and th inki n g in second a r y mathema t i c s classr o o ms .
Unpublished PhD, Stanford University.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989) . Situated Cognitio n and the Culture of
Learni n g . Educational Researcher , 18(1), 32-42.
Brunell o , C. (1992). Enterta i n me n t and Educat i o n : Are they compat i b l e ? The Planetarian ,
21(1), 10-14.
Calvin , W. (1996) . How Brains Think . London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Ca me ron , A. (2003). An Investi g a t i o n into Collate r a l Learnin g and Cultura l Border
Cross i n g in Basic Astro n o my among s t Foundat i o n Student s in a South African
University. Unpublished Master of Scien ce, University of the Witwa t e r s r a n d ,
Johannes b u r g .
Ca me ron , A. K., Rollnic k , M., & Doidge, M. (2005). The Influence of Prior Knowledge,
Cultur e and Religi o n on First Year and Foundati o n Students ' Understa n d i n g of
Basic Astrono my , 13th Annual Souther n African Associa t i o n for Researc h in
Mathema t i c s , Scienc e and Technol o g y E ducat i o n Confer e n c e . Windho e k , Na mi bi a .
Candela, A. (2001). Earthly Talk. Human Development , 44, 119-125.
Case, J., & Gunston e , R. (2002). Metaco g n i t i v e Devel o p me n t as a Shift in Approa c h to
Learni n g : an in -depth study. Studies in Higher Education , 27(4), 459-470.
Cha mpa g n e , D. W. (1975) . The Ontari o Scienc e Centre in Toront o : Some impres s i o n s and
sime questi o n s . Educational Technology , 15(8), 36-39.
Chaplin, S. (1997). The developing role of interacti ve science centres within science
education. In Thomps o n , D. (Ed.), Scien c e E ducat i o n in the 21st Centur y (pp. 59-
76). Aldersho t , UK: Arena.
Chapl i n , S., & Graham- S mi t h , F. (1992) . Jodrell Bank Visitor Centre . In Durant, J. (Ed.),
Museums and the public unders t a n d i n g of science (pp. 108-109 ) . London: Science
Museum.
Chinn, C., & Brewer, W. (1993). The role of anomalo u s data in knowled g e acquisi t i o n : A
theor et i ca l frame w o r k and impli c a t i o n s for scienc e inst r u ct i on . Review of
Educational Research , 63, 1-49.
Clerk, J. (2006) . Weight l e s s Astron a u t s . Paper presen t e d at the South Africa n Associ a t i o n
of Science and Technology E ducato r s Confere n c e , Durban.
286
Cobern, W. W. (1991). Worldv i e w Theory a nd Science Educat i o n Resear c h : Fundame n t a l
Epist e mol o g i c a l Struct u re as a Critica l Factor in Scien c e Lear n i n g and Attit u de
Devel o p me n t .
Cobern , W. W. (1996). Worldv i e w Theory and Concept u a l Change in Science Educat i o n .
Science Education , 80(5), 579-610.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in Education . Becke n h a m: Croom
Helm.
Comi n s , N. (2001) . Heavenly Errors: Misconceptions About the Real Nature of the
Universe . New York: Columbi a Univer s i t y Press.
Coombs , P. A., & Ahme d, M. (1974) . Attacking Rural Poverty: How Non-formal
Education Can help . Baltimor e : John Hopki ns University Press.
Cortazzi , M. (1993). Narrative Analysis . London : Falmer Press.
Cox-Pet e r s e n , A. M., Marsh, D. D., Kisiel, J ., & Melber, L. M. (2003). Investigation of
Guided School Tours, Student Learnin g , a nd Science Reform Recomme n d a t i o n s at
a Museum of Natura l Histo r y . Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 40(2),
200-218 .
Crane, V. (1994). An Introduction to Informal Science Learning and Research . In Crane,
V., Chen, M., Bitgood , S., Thompso n , D., Ni chols o n , H., Weiss, F., and Campbel l ,
P. (Ed.), Informa l Scienc e Learni n g : Wh at the Researc h Says About Televis i o n ,
Science Museums, and Communit y - B a s e d Pr ojects . Ephrata, PA: Science Press.
Crawley, F. E., & Koballa, T. R. (1994). A ttitude Research in Science Educatio n :
Contempora r y Models and Methods. Science Education , 78(1), 35-55.
Csiksz e n t mi h a l y i , M., & Herman s o n , K. (1995) . Intrinsic Motivation in Museums: Why
Does One Want to Learn? In Falk, J. H. & Dierkin g , L. D. (Eds.), Public
Instit u t i o n s for Person a l Learni n g : Esta blishing a Research Agenda (pp. 34-37, 59-
61 ) . Washi n g t o n , D.C.: Americ a n Assoc i a t i o n of Museums .
Davidowitz, B., & Rollnick, M. (2005). Develo pment and applicat i o n of a rubric for
analysi s of novice student s ? laboratory flow diagrams. International Journal of
Science Education , 27(1), 43-59.
Depart me n t of Arts Cultur e Scienc e and Technolo g y . (1996). White paper on science and
technol o g y . Prepar i n g for the 21st century . Pr etori a : Governme n t of South Africa.
Depart me n t of Educat i o n . (2000) . Draft Interv e n t i o n Strate g y for Scienc e , Mathema t i c s
and Technol o g y Educati o n (SMTE). Pretor i a : Govern me n t of South Africa .
Department of Education. (2002). Revised Nation al Curric u l u m Stateme nt for Grades R - 9
(Schoo l s ) Natura l Scien ces (No. 23406). Pretoria.
Departme n t of Science and Technol og y . (2006) . The Budget Vote Speech by the Minist e r
of Science & Technol o g y , Mr Mosibud i Mangena . Retriev e d 25 June, 2006, from
http:// w w w . d s t . g o v . z a / m e d i a / s p e e c h e s . p h p ? i d = 1 90& p r i nt = 1
Dewey, J. (1938). E xperience and Education . New York: Kappa Delta Pi.
Diakidoy , I.-A. N., & Kendeou, P. (2001). Facili ta t i n g conceptu a l change in astronom y : a
compar i s o n of the effect i v e n e s s of two instruc t i o na l approa c h e s . Learning and
Instruction , 11, 1-20.
Dierking , L. D. (2005). Museums, Affect, and Cognition: The View for another Window . In
Alsop, S. (Ed.), Beyond Cartesi a n Dualism. Toronto : Springe r .
Dierking, L. D., Cohen Jones, M., Wadma n, M., Falk, J. F., Storksd i e c k , M., &
Ellenbo g e n , K. (2002). Broade n i n g our Noti ons of the Impact of Free-Ch o i c e
Learnin g Experie n c e s . Informal Learning Review , 53(Jul y / A u g u s t ) .
Dierkin g , L. D., & Falk, J. F. (1994). Fa mily Behavi o r and Learni n g in Informa l Scienc e
Settings: A Review of the Research. Science Education , 78(1), 57-72.
287
Dierking, L. D., & Martin, L. ( 1997). Guest Editoria l : Introduc t i o n . Science Education ,
81(6), 629-631.
Dodick , J., & Orion, N. (2003) . Cognit i ve f actors affecti n g student underst a n d i n g of
geological time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 40(4), 415-442.
Dollard, J. (1935). Criteria for the life history . New Haven: Yale Universi t y Press.
Dove, J. (2002). Does the man in the moon ev er sleep? An analysis of student answers
about simpl e astro n o mi c a l event s : a case study. International Journal of Science
Education , 24(8), 823-834.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortime r , E., & Scott, P. (1994). C onstr u c t i n g scient i f i c
knowle d g e in the classro o m. Educational Researcher , 23, 5-12.
Duit, R., & Treagus t , D. (1998). Learning in science - from behaviourism towards social
constructivism and beyond . In Fraser, B. J., and Tobin, K.G (Ed.), Internat i o n a l
Handbo o k of Science Educat i o n (pp. 3- 25). Dordre c h t : Kluwer Academi c
Publis h e r s .
Dunlop, J. (2000). How Children Observe the Universe . Publications of the Astronomical
Society of Australia , 17, 194-206.
Durant, J. (1993). What is scientific literacy? In Durant, J. & Gre gory , J. (Eds.), Science
and Culture in Europe (pp. 129-138). London: Science Museum.
Dza ma, E., & Osborne , J. (1999). Poor perfor ma n c e among Africa n stud e n t s : an alter n a t i v e
explana t i o n of the Afri c a n World View thesi s . Journal of Research in Science
Teaching , 36(3), 387-403.
Engestr ? m, Y. (1991). Non Scoale sed v itae discimu s : Toward overcomi n g the
encapsul a t i o n of school. Learning and Instruction , 1, 243-259.
Engest r ? m, Y. (1993) . Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory:
The case of primary care medical practice. In Chaiklin, S. & Lave, J. (Eds.),
Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 65-103):
Ca mbrid g e Univer s i t y Press.
Erickson , G. (2000). Research programmes and the stude nt science learning literature . In
Millar , R., Leach, J. & Osborn e , J. (Eds.) , Improv i n g Scienc e Educat i o n : the
contribution of research (pp. 271-292). Buckin g h a m: Open Univer s i t y Press.
Explora t o r i u m . (2006). fact sheet 2005-06. Retrieved August 4, 2006, from
http://www.exploratorium. e d u / a b o u t / f a c t _ s h e e t . h t ml
Eylon, B.-S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Learni n g an d Instruc t i o n : an Examina t i o n of Four
Research Perspect i v e s in Science Educati o n . Review of Educational Research ,
58(3), 251-301.
Falc?o, D., Colinva u x , C., Krapas, S., Querioz , G., Alves, F., Cazelli, S., et al. (2004). A
model-based approach to science exhibi ti o n evaluati o n : a case study in a Brazilia n
astro n o my museu m. International Journal of Science Education , 26(8), 951-978.
Falk, J., & Storks d i e c k , M. (2005) . Using the Context u a l Model of Learnin g to Underst a n d
Visito r Learni n g from a Sc ience Center Exhibition. Science Education , 89(5), 744-
778.
Falk, J. H. (2001). Free-Choice Science Learning: Framing the Discussion . In Falk, J. H.
(Ed.), Free-Cho i c e Science Educatio n (pp. 3-20). New York: Teachers College
Press .
Falk, J. H. (2003). Personal Meaning Mapping . In Caban, G., Scott, C., Falk, J. H. &
Dierki n g , L. D. (Eds.) , Museums and Crea tivi t y : A study into the role of museums
in design educati o n . Sydney: Powerho u s e Publish i n g .
Falk, J. H., & Dierkin g , L. D. (1992). The Museum Experience . Washington DC:
Whalesback Books.
288
Falk, J. H., & Dierking , L. D. (1997). School Field Trips: Assess i n g their Long-T e r m
Impac t . Curator , 40(3), 211-21 8 .
Falk, J. H., & Dierkin g , L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and
their making of meaning . Walnut Creek, CA: Altami ra Press.
Falk, J. H., & Dierking , L. D. (2001). L earni n g from Scienc e Ce nter s : A Broade r
Perspe c t i v e . ASTC Dimensions , Jan/Feb, 4-7.
Falk, J. H., Moussouri, T., & Coulson, D. (1998). The Effect of Visitor s ' Agendas on
Museum Le arni n g . Curator , 41(2), 107-120.
Fisher, M. S. (1997). The Effect of Humor on Learn i n g in a Plane t a r i u m. Science
Education , 81(6), 703-713.
Flavell, J. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving . In Resnick , L. (Ed.), The
Nature of Intell i g e n ce . New York: Lawren c e Erlbau m.
Fleer, M. (1997). A Cross-cult u r a l Study of Rural Austral i a n Aborigi n a l Childre n 's
Understa n d i n g of Night and Day. Research in Science Education , 27(1), 101-116.
Gardne r , H. (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The theory in practice . New York: Basic
Books.
Gaylard , M. (undate d ) . Hist ory of the Science Awarene s s Program me at HartRAO :
Harteb e e s t h o e k Radio Astrono my Observ a t o r y .
Gilbert , J. K. (2001). Towards a Unified Model of Education and Entertainment in Science
and Technology Centres . In Stocklmayer, S. M., Gore , M. M. & Bryant, C. (Eds.),
Science Communication in Theory and Pr actice (pp. 123-142) . Dordrech t : Kluwer.
Goldbe r g , S. (1995) . Big Scienc e : Atomic Bomb Resear c h and The Beginn i n g s of High
Energy Physic s . Retrie v e d 24 March, 2006, from
http:// d e p t s . w a s h i n g t o n . e d u / h s s e xec/newsletter /1998/goldberg.html
Gorard, S. (2001). Quantitative methods in educational research: the role of numbers
made easy . London: Continu u m.
Gorard, S., & Taylor, C. (2004). Combining Methods in Educ ational and Social Research .
Buckingh a m : Open Universi t y Press.
Gregor y , J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in Public: Communication, Culture and
Credibility . Ca mbrid g e , Mass.: Perseus Publish i n g .
Griffin, J. (2004). Research on Students a nd Museums : Looking More Closely at the
Students in School Groups. Science Education , 88(Sup p l e me n t 1), S59-S70 .
Griffin, J., & Symi ngton , D. (1997). Moving fr om Task-Oriented to Learning-Oriented
Strategi e s on School Ex cursio n s to Museums. Science Education , 81(6), 763-779.
Gunston e , R. F., & White, R. T. (1981). Unders t a n d i n g of Gravity . Science Education ,
65(3), 291-299.
Hargre a v e s , A. (1996) . The emotio n a l practi c e of teachi n g . Teaching and Teacher
Education , 14, 835-854.
Hawkey , R. (2001). Science beyond school: Repres entation or re-presentation? In
Loveless , A. & Ellis, V. (Eds.), ICT, Pedagogy and the Curricul u m (pp. 104-127) .
London and New York: Routle d g e / Fa l me r .
Hein, G. E. (1998). Learning in the Museum . London: Routledg e .
Henning , E. (2004). Finding your way in qualitative research . Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Hewson, P., & Hewson, M. (1992). The status of students' conceptions . In Druit, R.,
Goldberg, F. & Niedderer, H. (Eds.), Re sear c h in physics learnin g : Theoret i c a l
issues and empiri c a l studie s (pp. 176-18 7 ) . Kiel, Germa n y : Insti t ut e for Scien c e
Educat i o n .
Hidi, S., & Harachi e w i c z , J. (2000). Motiva t i o n the Academi c a l l y Unmoti v a t e d : A Critica l
Issue for the 21st Century . Review of Educational Research , 70(2), 151-179.
289
Hilgard , E. (1980). The trilogy of mind: Cogniti on , affect i o n , and conation . Journal of the
History of the Behavioral Sciences , 16, 107-117.
Hlatshwa y o , S., & Stanton, M. (2005). Alte rnative conceptions of high school science
studen t s on project i l e motion . In Kasanda , C., Muhammed , L., Akpo, S. & Ngololo,
E. (Eds.), Proceed i n g s of the13th Annual SAARMST E Confere n c e . Windhoe k ,
Nami bi a : Unesco Office .
Hofstein, A., & Rosenfeld, S. (1996). Bridgi n g the Gap Between Formal and Informa l
Scienc e Learni n g . Studies in Science Education , 28, 87-112.
Hollida y , A. (2002). Doing and Writing Qualitative Research . London: Sage.
Hufnag e l , B. (2002) . Develo p me n t of the Astron o my Diagno s t i c Test. Astronomy
Education Review , 1(1), 47-51.
Huitt, W. (1999) . Conati o n as an import a nt factor of mind. Re trieve d 27 April, 2006, from
http://c h i r o n . v a l d o s t a . e d u / w h u i t t / c o l / r e g s y s / c o n a t i o n . h t ml
Jarman , R., & McAlees e , L. (1996). Physic s for the star-ga z e r : pupils ' attitu d e s to
astrono my in the Norther n Irelan d Scienc e Curric u l u m. Physics Education , 223-
226.
Jarvis, T., & Pell, A. (2002). Effect of the Challen g e r Experie n c e on Element a r y Childre n 's
Attit u de s to Scien c e . Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 39(10), 979-1000 .
Jarvis, T., & Pell, A. (2005). Factors influen c i n g eleme n t a r y schoo l child r e n 's attit u des to
scienc e before during and follow i n g a visit to the UK Nation a l Space Centre .
Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 42(1), 53-83.
Jegede, O. J. (1995). Collater a l Learnin g and the Eco-Cul t u r a l Paradig m in Science and
Mathe ma t i cs Educa t i o n in Afric a . Studies in Science Education , 25, 97-137.
Jegede, O. J., & Okebukola , P. A. (1991). Th e relation s h i p between African traditio n a l
cosmo l o g y and stude n t s ' acqui si t i o n of a scienc e proces s skill. International
Journal of Science Education , 13(1), 37-47.
Johannes b u r g Planetar i u m . (1999). History of the Johanne s b u r g Planeta r i u m. Retriev e d 30
August , 2005, from http:// w w w . w i t s . a c . z a / p l a n e t a r i u m/ h i s t o r y . h t m
Kagan, D. (1990). Ways of Evaluat i o n Teach e r Cogni t i o n : Infer e n c e s Conce r n i n g the
Goldi l o c k s Princ i pl e . Review of Educational Research , 60(3), 419-469.
Kikas, E. (1998a) . The Impact of Teachin g on Students ' Defi niti o n s and Explanat i o ns of
Astron o mi c a l Phenome na . Learning and Instruction , 8(5), 439-454.
Kikas, E. (1998b). Pupils' explanat i o n s of seasona l changes : age differe n c e s and the
influe n c e of teachi n g . British Journal of Educational Psychology , 68, 505-516.
King, N. (n.d.) . Templa t e Analys i s: Qualit y Checks . Retrie ve d 20 July, 2006, from
http:// w w w . h u d . a c . u k / h h s / r e s e a r c h / t e mp l a t e _ a n a l y s i s / t e c h n i q u e / q u a l i t y r e f l e x i v i t y . h
t m
Klein, C. A. (1982). Children 's C oncep t s of the Earth and the Sun. Science Education ,
65(1), 95-107.
Koballa , T. R. (n.d.). The Motivat i o n a l Power of Science Discrepant Events. Retrieved 20
July, 2006, from
http://w w w . a r c h e s . u g a . e d u / ~ b c r a mo n d / h o me / D i s c r e p a n t E v e n t s . h t m
Koosimi l e , A. T. (2004). Out-of - s c h o o l experi e n c e s in science classe s : problems , issues
and challenges in Botswana. International Journal on Science Education , 26(4) ,
483-496 .
Kubota, C., & Olstad, R. (1991). Effects of Novelty- r e d u c i n g preparat i o n on Explorat o r y
Behav i o r and Cognit i v e Learn i n g in a Scien c e Museu m Setti n g . Journal of
Research in Science Teaching , 28(3), 225-234.
290
Larkin, S. (2000) . How Can We Discer n Me tacog n i t i o n in Year One Childr e n from
Intera c t i o n s betwee n Studen t s and Teach er, Paper presented at ESRC Teac hing and
Learnin g Researc h Program m e Confere n c e . Leicest e r , UK.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitima te peripheral participation.
Ca mbri d g e : Ca mbri d g e Univer s i t y Press.
Lederma n , N., Abd-El - K h a l i c k , F., Bell, R., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of Nature of
Science Questi o n n a i r e . Journal Research on Science Teaching , 39, 497-521.
Leinha r d t , G., & Gregg, M. (2002). Burning Buses, Burning Crosses: Student Teachers
See Civil Rights . In Leinhardt, G., Crowley, K. & Knutson, K. (Eds.), Learning
Conversations in Museums (pp. 139-166). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Lelliot t , A. D., Rollni c k, M., & Pendle b u r y , S. (2006) . Gravit y in the Solar System ? the
role of informa l learnin g , 14th Annual S outher n African Associa t i o n for Researc h
in Mathema t i c s , Scienc e and Techno l o g y Educatio n Conferen c e (pp. 78-88).
Pretoria , South Africa.
Lemmer, M., Lemmer, T. M., & Smit, J. J. A. (2003). South Africa n st udent s ' views of the
unive r s e . International Journal of Science Education , 25(5), 562-582.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry . Beverly Hills: Sage.
Loughran , J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. ( 2004). In Search of Pedagog i c a l Conten t
Knowledge in Science: Developing Wa ys of Art i cul a t i n g and Docume n t i n g
Profess i o n a l Practic e . Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 41(4), 370-391.
Lucas, A. M. (1983). Scient i f i c Literacy and Informal Learning. Studies in Science
Education , 10, 1-36.
Lucas, A. M. (1991). 'Info-t a i n me n t ' and informa l sources for learnin g science .
International Journal of Science Education , 13(5), 495-504.
Lucas, K. B. (1999). Wh en Mr Jones took Grade 5 to the Science c e nt r e . Retrie ve d
2003/0 4 / 0 2 , 2003
Lucas, K. B. (2000). One Teacher 's Agenda for a Class Visit to an Interac t i v e Science
Cente r . Science Education , 84, 524-544.
Luke, J. J. (1998). Art Around the Corner: An Assess me n t of the Long-t e r m Impac t of an
Art Museum Progr a m on Stude nts? Interpretations of Ar t. Unpubli s h e d Master of
Museum Studie s Thesis , Univer s i t y of Toronto , Toront o .
Luke, J. J., Ca mp, B. D., Dierki ng , L. D., & Pearce, U. J. (2001). The First Free-Choice
Science Learning Conference: From Issues to Future Directions. In Falk, J. H.
(Ed.), Free-Choice Science Education. New York: Teacher s College Press.
Maher, F. A., & Tetreault , M. K. (1994). The Feminist Classroom . New York: Basic
Books.
Malcol m, C., & Alant, B. (2004). Findin g Di rectio n When the Ground Is Moving: Science
Educat i o n Resear c h in South Africa . Studies in Science Education , 40, 49-104.
Mali, G. B., & Howe, A. (1979). Develop m e n t of Earth and Gravit y Concep t s among
Nepali Childr e n . Science Education , 63(5), 685-691.
Martin, L. (2001). Free-Choice Science Learning: Futu re Directions for Researchers . In
Falk, J. (Ed.), Free-C h o i c e Scienc e Educat i o n . New York: Teacher s College Press.
Martin, L. (2004). An Emergin g Researc h Fr ame wo r k for Studyin g Informa l Learni n g and
Schools . Science Education , 88(Suppl e me n t 1), S71-S82.
Matthe w s , M. (2000). Time for Science Education : Kluwer Academi c / Plenum Publis h e r s .
McClafferty, T. P. (1995). Did You Hear Grandda d ? Childre n 's and adults' use and
underst a n d i n g of a sound exhibit at interactive science centres. Journal of
Education in Museums , 16, 12-16.
291
McClure, J. R., Sonak, B., & Suen, H. K. (1999) . Concep t Map Assess me nt of Classr o o m
Learn i n g: Relia bi l i t y , Validi t y , and Logisti c a l Practi c a l i t y . Journal of Research in
Science Teaching , 36(4), 475-492.
McManu s , P. M. (1992) . Topics in museums and scienc e educat i o n . Studies in Science
Education , 20, 157-182.
Medved , M., & Oatley , K. (2000) . Memori e s and scient i f i c lit era c y : reme mb e r i n g exhibi t s
from a scienc e centr e . International Journal of Science Education , 22(10), 1117-
1132.
Miles, M. B., & Huberma n , A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, Ca: Sage.
Mintzes , J. J., & Wanders e e , J. H. (1998). Reform and Innovation in Science Teaching: a
Human Constructivist View . In Mintzes, J. J., Wa nderse e , J. H. & Novak, J. D.
(Eds.) , Teachi n g Scienc e for Unders t a n d i n g . A Human Constr u c t i v i s t View. San
Diego: Acade mi c Press .
Mintzes, J. J., Wanderse e , J. H., & Novak, J. (1997). Meaningful Learning in Science: The
Human Constructivist Perspective . In Phye, G. D. (Ed.), Handbook of Academic
Learning (pp. 405-447). San Die go, CA: Academi c Press.
Mische l , W. (1996) . From good intentions to willpower . In Gollwit z e r , P. & Bargh, J.
(Eds.), The Psychol o g y of Action (pp. 197-218). New York: Guildford Press.
Mishler, E. G. (1990). Valida tio n in Inquir y - G u i d e d Resear c h : The Role of Exe mpl a r s in
Narrat i v e Studie s . Harvard Educational Review , 60(4), 415-442.
Mohapatra, J. K. (1991). The interaction of cu ltural rituals and the concepts of science in
student learnin g : a case study on solar eclipse . International Journal of Science
Education , 13(4), 431-437.
Moolla. (2003). An interven t i o n with student teac h e r s : pupil misco n c e p t i o n s in mecha n i c s .
Unpublished PhD, University of the Witwate r s r a n d , Johann e s b u r g .
Morine-D e r s h i me r , G. (1993). Tracing Con cep t u a l Change in Preser v i c e Teache r s .
Teaching and Teacher Education , 9(9), 15-26.
Mosoloane, R., & Stanton, M. (2005). Learners ? concept i o n s about astrono mi c a l concep t s
related to the Sun and the Earth. Paper pr esent e d at the Proceed i n g s of the13th
Annual SAARMSTE Conference, Windhoek, Na mi bia.
Novak, J. (1985). Metalearning and Metaknowledge strate gies to help students learn how
to learn . In West, L., and A. Pines (Ed.), Cognitive structure and conceptual
change . Orland o , FL: Academi c Press.
Novak, J. (1988). Learning Scien ce and the Science of Learning . Studies in Science
Education , 15, 77-101.
Novak, J., & Gowin, D. (1984). Learning How to Learn . New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Nussba u m, J. (1979). Childr e n s ' Concep t i o n s of the Earth as a Cos mic Body: A Cross Age
Study. Science Education , 63(1), 83-93.
Nussbau m, J., & Novak, J. (1976). An Assessme nt of Childre n 's Concept s of the Earth
Utili z i n g Struc t u r e d Inter v i e w s . Science Education , 60(4), 535-550.
Ogunnyi, M. B. (1996, 1998). Introduc t i o n . Pape r presen t e d at the Promot i n g Publi c
Underst a n d i n g of Science and Technol ogy in Southern Africa, Cape Town.
Ojala, J. (1992). The third planet. International Journal of Science Education , 14(2), 191-
200.
Opie, C. (Ed.). (2004) . Doing Educati o n a l Rese ar c h : A Guide for First Time Researc h e r s .
London: Sage Publicat i o n s .
292
Orion, N. (1993) . A Model for the Develo p me n t and Imple me n t a t i o n of Field Trips as an
Integr a l Part of the Scienc e Curric u l um . School Science and Mathematics , 93(6),
325-331 .
Osborne , J. (1996). Beyond Constru c t i v i s m. Science Education , 80(1), 53-82.
Osborn e , J., Simon, S., & Collins , S. (2003). At titud e s towards science : a review of the
liter at u r e and its impli c at i o n s . International Journal of Science Education , 25(9),
1049-10 7 9 .
Palmer , D. (2001) . Studen t s ' altern a t i v e c onceptions and scientifically acceptable
conceptions about gravity. International Journal of Science Education , 23(7), 691-
706.
Paris, S. G. (1999). From the Guest Editor . Journal of Museum Education , 23(1), 2.
Parker, J., & Heywood, D. (1998). The earth and beyond : develo p i n g primar y teache r s '
unders t a n d i n g of basic astron o mi c a l events . International Jour nal of Science
Education , 20(5), 503-520.
Parker, S. K. (1995). Lessons from Museum and Leisur e Resear c h . Planetarian , 24(2), 9-
11.
Parkyn, M. (1993). Scient i f i c Imagin g . Museums Journal , October 1993, 29-34.
Pasachoff, J. M. (2001). Wh at should Students Learn? The Physics Teacher ,
39(Sep t e mb e r ) , 381-38 2 .
Pasach o f f , J. M. (2002) . Pasach o f f 's Points . The Physics Teacher , 40(April), 196-198.
Pearsa l l , N., R., Skipper , J. E. L., & Mintzes , J. J. (1997). Knowledg e Restruct u r i n g in the
Life Science s : A Longitud i n a l Study of Conceptu a l Change in Biology. Science
Education , 81, 193-215.
Piaget, J. (1929). The Child's Conception of the World . London: Routledg e & Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J. (1930). The Child's Conception of Physical Causality . London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Polkinghorne, D. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. In Amos Hat ch,
J., and Wisniew s k i , R. (Ed.), Life Histor y and Narrati v e . London: Falmer Press.
Poole, M. (1995). Beliefs and Values in Science Education . Buckin g h a m: Open Univer s i t y
Press .
Potgie t e r , M., Engelbr e c h t , J. C., & Hardi ng, A. F. (2006). Procedural and conceptual
knowl e d g e in underg r a d u a t e mathe ma t i c s and chemis t r y , 14th Annual South e r n
African Associat i o n for Research in Mathema t i c s , Scienc e and Technol o g y
Educat i o n Confer e n c e . Pretor i a , South Africa.
Pushkin, B. D. (1996). A comment on the need to use scient i f i c termin o l o g y approp r i a t e l y
in concep t i o n studie s . Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 33(2), 223-224.
Rahm, J. (2004). Multip l e Modes of Meaning - M a k i n g in a Science Center . Science
Education , 88(2), 223-247.
Ra me y- G a s s e r t , L., Walber g , H. J. I., & Walb erg , H. J. (1994). Reexami n i n g Connect i o n s :
Museums as Science Learni n g Eviron me n t s . Science Education , 78(4), 345-363.
Rennie, L. J. (2001). Communicating Science through Inte ractive Science Centres: A
Research Perspective . In Stocklma y e r , S. M., Gore , M.M., and Bryant, C. (Ed.),
Science Communication in Theory and Pr actice (pp. 107-121) . Dordrech t : Kluwer.
Rennie, L. J., Feher, E., Dierking, L. D., & Falk, J. H. (2003). Toward an Agenda for
Advanci n g Resear c h on Science Le arning in Out-of-S c h o o l Settings . Journal of
Research in Science Teaching , 40(2), 112-120.
Rennie, L. J., & McClaffe r t y , T. P. (1 996) . Scienc e Centre s and Scienc e Learni n g . Studies
in Science Education , 27, 53-98.
Riorda n , R. (1991) . Planet a r i u m Educa tio n : A Review of the Literatu r e . Planetarian ,
20(3), 18-26.
293
Roald, I., & Mikals e n , O. (2000) . Wh at are the Earth and heavenly bodi es like? A study of
objectua l concepti o n s among Norweg i a n deaf and hearing pupils. International
Journal of Science Education , 22(4), 337-355.
Roald, I., & Mikalse n , O. (2001). Config u r a t i o n and dynami c s of the Earth-S u n - M o o n
syste m: an inves t i ga t i o ns into conc eptions of deaf and hearing pupils. International
Journal of Science Education , 23(4), 423-440.
Roberts, L. C. (1997). From Knowledge to Narrative: Educators and the Changing
Museum . Washi n g t o n: Smith s o n i a n Insti t ut i o n Press .
Rollnick , M. (2000). Current Issues and Pe rspectives on Second Language learning of
Scien c e . Studies in Science Education , 35, 93-122.
Rosche l l e , J. (1995). Learning in Interactive Envir onments: Prior Knowledge and New
Experience . In Falk, J. H. & Dierki n g, L. D. (Eds. ) , Publi c Insti t ut i o n s for Perso n a l
Learni n g : Establi s h i n g a Researc h Agend a . Was hi n g t o n D.C.: Ameri c a n
Assoc i a t i o n of Museums .
Roth, W.-M. (2005) . Talking Science: Language and Lear ning in Science Classrooms .
Lanha m: Rowma n & Littl e fi el d .
Ruiz-Pri mo , M., & Shavelson , R. (1996). Problem s and issues in the use of concep t maps
in scienc e assess me n t . Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 33(6), 569-600.
Rusk, J. (2003). Do Science Demonst r a t i o n s in the Planeta r i u m Enhanc e Learni n g .
Planetarian , March 2003, 5-8.
Ryan, G., & Weisner, T. (1997). Analyzin g words in brief descriptions: Fathers and
mothers describe their children . Retrieve d 16 April, 2005, from
www.ana l y t i c t e c h . c o m/ b o r g a t t i / r y a n t e x t . h t m
Sadler , P. M. (1998) . Psycho me t r i c Models of Student Concepti o n s in Science:
Reconc i l i n g Quali t at i v e Studi e s and Dist r a ct o r- D r i v e n Assessme n t Instr ume n t s .
Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 35(3), 265-29 6 .
Sadler, P. M. (2001). Choosin g Between Helios e i s mol o g y and Phases of the Moon. The
Physics Teacher , 39(Dec e mb e r ) , 554-55 5 .
Sadler, P. M. (2002). Further Discussi o n . The Physics Teacher , 40(Apri l ) , 198.
Sander s , M. (1998) . No simple panace a s : A re spons e to Fish. In Ogunnyi , M. B. (Ed.),
Promot i n g Public Unders t a n d i n g of Scien ce in Souther n Africa (pp. 85-91). Cape
Town: SSME, Univers i t y of Western Cape.
Schauble, L., Leinhardt, G., & Martin, L. (1997). A Framework of Organizing a
Cumul a t i v e Resea r c h Agend a in Infor ma l Learn i n g Conte x t s . Journal of Museum
Education , 22(2 and 3), 3-7.
Schoultz, J., S?lj?, R., & Wyndha mn, J. (2001). Heavenly Talk: Discourse, Artifacts, and
Childre n 's Underst a n d i n g of Ele mentary Astronomy. Human Development , 44,
103-118 .
Schur, Y. (1999) . Constr u c t i v i s m and Mediat e d Learning Experience as a Basis for a
Process of Concept u a l Change in Student s ' Concepts of Earth. Unpublis h e d Doctor
of Philosophy, University of th e Witwat e r s r a n d , Johann e s b u r g .
Setati, M. (2003). Speakin g math ema t i c a l l y : langua g e ( s ) , disc ou r s e and cultur a l models in
a multi c u l t ur a l meth e ma t i c s class r o om in South Africa, Procee d i n g s of the 11th
Annual SAARMSTE conference (pp. 605- 615): University of Swaziland,
Mbaba n e .
Setati, M., Adler, J., Reed, Y., & Bapoo, A. (2002). Code-switching and other language
practices in mathematics, science and English language classrooms in South
Africa . In Adler, J. & Reed, Y. (Eds.), Chall e n g e s of Teach e r Devel o p me n t : an
investig a t i o n of take-up in Sout h Africa. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
294
Sha mos, M. (1995). The Myth of Scientific Literacy . New Brunswi c k , NJ: Rutgers
Univer s i t y Press.
Sharma , M. D., Millar , R. M., Smith, A., & Sefton, I. M. (2004). Studen t s ' Unders t a n d i n g
of Gravity in an Orbiting Space-Ship. Research in Science Education , 34(3), 267-
289.
Sharp, J. G. (1996) . Childr e n 's astron o mi c a l be liefs : a prelimin a r y study of Year 6 children
in south-w e s t Englan d . International Journal of Science Education , 18(6), 685-712.
Shen, B. (1975). Science Literacy and the P ublic Understanding of Science . In Day, S.
(Ed.), Commun i c a t i o n of Scient i f i c Informa t i o n . Basel: Kager.
Shortl a n d , M. (1987) . No busin e s s like show busine s s . Nature , 328, 213-214.
Shulma n , L. S. (1986) . Those who unders tand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher , 15(2), 4-14.
Silver ma n , L. H. (1995) . Visito r Meani ng-Making in Museums for a Ne w Age. Curator ,
38(3), 161-170.
Sj?berg, S. (2000). The Disencha n t me n t w ith Science . Retriev e d 16 June, 2006, from
http:// f o l k . u i o . n o / s v e i n s j / T h e % 2 0 d i s e n c h a n t me n t % 2 0 w i t h % 2 0 s c i e n c e E x p . h t m
Slisko, J., & Dykstra, D. (1997). The Role of Scienti f i c Termin o l o g y in Researc h and
Teac h i n g : Is Somet h i n g Impo r t a n t Miss i n g? Journal of Research in Science
Teaching , 34(6), 655-660.
Smith, J., diSessa , A., & Roschel l e , J. (1993). Misconceptions Reconceived: A
Constructivist Analysis of Knowled g e in Transit i o n . The Journal of the Learning
Sciences , 3(2), 115-163.
Squar e Kilome t r e Array . (nd). South Afric a ' s Compe t i t i ve Advan t a g e . Retri e v e d 25 June,
2006, from http:// w w w . s k a . a c . z a / s a c a . h t ml
Stahly, L., Krockov e r , G., & Shepard s o n , D. (1 999) . Third Grade Studen t s ' ideas About the
Lunar Phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 36(2), 159-177.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research : SAGE Publications.
Statistics South Africa. (2001). Census 2001: Key Results . Retriev e d July 12, 2006, from
http://www.statssa.gov.za/census01/htm l/Ke y % 2 0 r e s u l t s _ f i l e s / K e y % 2 0 r e s u l t s . p d f
Storks d i e c k , M. (2004). Testi ng a Model for Underst a n d i n g Fi eld Trips in Enviro n me nt a l
Educati o n . Unpubli s h e d Doctor of Philo sophy thesis, Univer s i t a t Lunebur g .
Strike , K., & Posner , G. (1985) . A conceptual change view of learning and understanding .
In West, L., and A. Pines (Ed.), Cognit i ve struct ure and concept u a l change.
Orland o , FL: Academi c Press.
Strike , K., & Posner , G. (1992) . A revisionist theory of conceptual change . In Duschl, R. &
Ha milt o n (Eds.) , Philos o p h y of scienc e , c ognitive science, and educati o n a l theory
and practive (pp. 147-176). Al bany , NY: State Univer s i t y of New York Press.
Summer s , M., & Mant, J. (1995) . A survey of British primary school teacher s '
unders t a n di n g of the Earth's place in the univer s e . Educational Research , 37(1), 3-
19.
Taylor, N., & Vinjevold, P. (Eds.). (1999). Ge tting learni n g right: repor t of the Presid e n t 's
Educa t i o n Initi a t i ve Resea r c h Proj e c t . Johann e s b u r g : Joint Educat i o n
Trust. D e p a r t me n t of Educat i o n .
Tennys o n , R. D., & Rasch, M. (1988) . Linkin g cognit i ve learni n g theory to instruc t i o n a l
prescriptions. Instructional Science , 17(4), 369-385.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative Research: Analys is Types & Software Tools . Basingst o k e ,
UK: Fal mer Press.
Tobin, K. (2000). Interpretive Research in Science Education . In Kelly, A., and Lesh, R.
(Ed.), Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education.
Mahwah, New Jerset: Lawrence Erlbaum.
295
Tobin, K., Tippins , & Gallard . (1994) . Research on Instructional Strategies for Teaching
Science . In Gabel, D. L. (Ed.), Handbook of Res earch on Science Teaching and
Learni n g . New York: Macmil l a n .
Treagu s t , D., & Smith, C. L. (1989) . Second a r y Students' Understanding of Gravity and
the Motion of Planet s . School Science and Mathematics , 89(5), 380-391.
Trowbrid g e , J. E., & Wa nderse e , J. H. (1998). Theory-Drive Graphic Organizers . In
Mintzes , J. J., Wanders e e , J. H. & Novak, J. D. (Eds.), Teachi n g Science for
Understa n d i n g . A Huma n Construc t i v i s t Vi ew (pp. 109-131). San Diego: Academic
Press .
Trumpe r , R. (2001a) . A cross-a g e study of j unior high school student s ' concept i o n s of
basic astro n o my conce p t s . International Journal of Science Education , 23(11),
1111-11 2 3 .
Trumper, R. (2001b). A Cross-age study of Se nior High School Student s ' Concept i o n s of
Basic Astron o my Conce p t s . Research in Science & Technological Education ,
19(1), 97-109.
Trundle , K., Atwood, R., & Christop h e r , J. (2002). Preserv i c e Element a r y Teacher s '
Concept i o n s of Moon Phases be fore and after Instruction. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching , 39(7), 633-658.
Tyson, M., Venvil l e , G., Harris o n , J., & Treagu st , D. (1997) . A multid i m e n s i o n a l
fra mew o r k for interp r e t i n g concep t u a l change events in the classr o o m. Science
Education , 81, 387-404.
Univers i t y of Hudders f i e l d . (2006). Templa t e Analys i s . Retrie v e d 15 July, 2006, from
http:// w w w . h u d . a c . u k / h h s / r e s e a r c h / t e mp l a t e _ a n a l y s i s / t e c h n i q u e / q u a l i t y r e f l e x i v i t y . h
t m
Urke, T. (1993). Researc h on the Effects of Teachi n g Astron o my with a Planet a r i u m.
Planetarian , 22(4), 19-20.
Uzzel, D. (1993) . Contrasting psychological persp ectives on exhibition evaluation . In
Bicknel l , S. & Farmelo , G. (Eds.), Museum visito r studie s in the 90s (pp. 125-129 ) .
London: Science Museum.
van der Riet, M., Dison, A., & Quinn, L. ( 1998). Concep t u a l develo p me n t throug h proces s -
w r i t i n g in a Psycho l o g y II course . South African Journal of Higher Education ,
12(1), 221-226.
Vosniad o u , S. (1991). Designi n g curricu l a for con cep t u a l restru c t u r i n g : Lesson s from the
study of knowledg e acquisit i o n in astronomy . Journal of Curriculum Studies ,
23(3), 219-237.
Vosnia d o u , S., & Brewer , W. F. (1992) . Ment al Models of the Earth: A Study of
Concept u a l Change in Childho o d . Cognitive Psychology , 24, 535-585.
Vosnia d o u , S., & Brewer , W. F. (1994) . Ment al Models of the Day/Night Cycle. Cognitive
Science , 18, 123-183.
Vosniad o u , S., Skopeli t i , I., & Ikospenk a t i , K. (2 005) . Recons i d e r i n g the ro le of artifact s in
reason i n g : Childr e n ? s unders ta n d i n g of the globe as a model of the earth . Learning
and Instruction , 15, 333-351.
Wall, C. (1973). A Review of Resear ch Related to Astronomy Education. School Science
and Mathematics , 73(8), 653-669.
Watts, D. M. (1982). Gravity -- don't take it for grant e d ! Physics Education , 17(3), 116-
121.
Weinbu r g h , M. (1995). Gender Differ e n c e s in St udent Attitu d e s toward s Scienc e . A Meta-
An a l y s i s of the Literat u r e from 1970 to 1991. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching , 32, 387-398.
296
Wellin g t o n , J. (1990) . Formal and informa l learni n g in scienc e : the role of the interac t i v e
scienc e centre s . Physics Education , 25, 247-252.
White, R. (1997). Trends in Re searc h in Science Educati o n . Research in Science
Education , 27(2), 215-221.
Wolcot t , H. (1988). Adequate School and Inadequate Educa tion: The Life History of a
Sneaky Kid . In Jaeger, R. (Ed.), Compleme ntary Methods for Research in
Educat i o n . Washi n g t o n DC: Americ a n Educational Research Association.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Designing Single- and Multiple-Case Studies . In Bennett, N., Glatter,
R., and Levacic (Ed.), Improvin g Edu cati o n a l Manageme n t (pp. 135-155 ) . London:
Open Universi t y and Paul Chapma n Publishi n g .
Zeilik , M. (1994) . Astronomy: The Evolving Universe . New York: John Wiley.
Zeller, N. (1995a). Narrative Rationality in Educational Research . In McEwan, H. &
Egan, K. (Eds.), Narrati v e in Teachin g , Learnin g, and Researc h . New York:
Teach e r s Colle g e Press .
Zeller, N. (1995b). Narrative strategies for case reports . In Amos Hatch, J. & Wisnie w s k i ,
R. (Eds.), Life History and Na rrat i v e . London : Falmer Press.
Appendices
298
Appendix A
O r i g i n a l questi o n n a i r e admi ni stered as a pilot study
Survey
We would like to find out your ideas about things in space. This is not a test, and
won?t be used at school in any way.
1. Wha t is the sola r syst e m?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
2. T h e sun is a star.
a. W h a t is it made of?
___________________________________________________________
b. W h a t makes the sun shine ?
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
c. W h y does the sun look differen t to the stars you see at night?
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
3. N a me the four inner planets of the solar system
_________________________________________________________________
4. W h y don?t the planet s orbiti n g (going around) the sun fly off into space?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
5. W h a t makes the moon shine at night (and someti me s durin g the day)?
_________________________________________________________________
6. D r a w a pictur e of the Earth and the Sun to show why day-ti me and night- t i me
happen . Includ e these labels : Ea rth, Sun, day-ti me , night- t i me .
Thank You
Appendices
299
Appendix B
C o n d e n s e d versio n s of Pre Visit Inte rvie w Schedule s (white space remo ved)
HartRAO Pre-Visit Student Interview (PVSI) Code:
Introduction
1 . Introduc i n g myself
I am Tony Lelliott, a student in the Schoo l of Education, University of the
Witwatersrand, doing research at the Jo hannesburg Planetarium and the Hartebeeshoek
Radio Astronomy Observatory in Gauteng, South Africa.
2. Purpos e, Context, and Intended Use of the Interview
The purpose of this interview is to find out about your proposed visit to the
Johannesburg Planetarium or the Hartebeeshoek Radio Astronomy Observatory . I intend to
use the information you provide to get an overall picture of what happens during your visit and
what you experience.
3 . Assurin g Confide n t i a l i ty
I assure you of complete confidentiality of any information you share with me, and the
use of pseudonyms instead of actual names in the transcript and the report. No one except
my supervisor and myself will have access to the videos.
4. Permission to Tape
I would like to videotape the conversation for recollection of our discussion. Will you
give me the permission to videotape this conversation? [if the answer is yes, I set the tape on;
if the answer is no, I take notes during the interview].
5. Any Ques tions
Before we start, first, do you have any questi ons about the purpose of the interview,
confidentiality, tape recording, or any other thing you would like to ask me?
Section A. Demographic information.
1 . Fictitious name: ________ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __
2. Age: ________ _ __ _ _ __ _ __
3. Sex (Male/Female): _____________
4. Your parent/guardians names _______ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __
5. Place of Origin (Farm/Township /Town/City/Other): ______________________
6. Name of School you are at _________ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _
7. Grade _______ _ __ _ _ __ _
8. Your home phone no. ________ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _
9. What language(s) do you mainly speak at home? ________ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _
Appendices
300
Section B. The Proposed Visit. (HartRAO)
1. Where are you going on the forthcoming visit?
2. What subject and topic area is the visit related to?
3. What do you think is the purpose of the visit?
4. What preparation have you been doing for the visit? Probe for organisational
preparation; tasks/worksheets, learning prep aration in class on topic; preparation for
the nature of the venue; etc.
5. Are you looking forward to the visit? Why/not?
Section C. Knowledge (relevant for HartRAO trip)
1 . How is the sun similar or differ ent to stars that we see at night?
2. What is the temperature today (approx.)? What temperature does water boil at? How
hot do you think the sun is? What else c an you tell me about the sun? What can we
use the sun for?
3. Why does the sun move across the sky every day? Use model if you like.
4. The sun and the moon look the same size in our sky. Are they? Why do you say that?
[Which is really bigger?] Why do they look the same size?
5. Stars at night look like pinpri cks of light. Why? What are they?
6. What does the word ?satellite? mean to you? Probe: if DSTV, where is signal from?
What is the shape of the dish? Why is it th is shape? Is the word satellite used in any
other way/meaning? [What about satellite dish]
7. What does the moon look like if you see it every night over the course of a month?
Why does the moon look different on different nights throughout the month?
8. What is gravity? What does it do? W hat would gravity be like on the moon? On
Jupiter? Why the difference? So what is the pull of gravity related to? Does the
earth?s? gravity have any effect on the moon? What? What about the moon?s grav.
effect on the earth?
9. Have you heard any planet or space-related things on TV, in magazines or in the
news at all recently?
Section D. Attitude to Science/Astronomy
1. Do you like school? Probe why/not.
2. What are your 2 favourite subjects at school? Why?
3. What are your 2 least favourite subjects at school? Why?
4. What do you do in your spare time? Wh at TV programmes do you like? Do you read
much? Tell me any books you have read recently.
5. So far at school, have you ever covered th ings like the sun, t he moon, planets, space
stars etc? In which subject did you cover them?
6. Do you find anything to do with space, planets and stars interesting? If so, what?
why? If not, why not?
7. If you were a teacher teaching about space, planets and stars, what would you do
with your students (in your own grade)?
8. Have scientists found life anywhere ot her than earth? Do you think there is life
anywhere else in the universe? Do you believe in aliens? Probe why. Have aliens
ever visited earth?
9. Do you believe in the horoscope in magazines etc? [astrology]. Probe.
Appendices
301
1 0 . Are you religious? What is god?s relationship to the universe?
Planetarium Pre-Visit Student Interview (PVSI)
Sections A and B are same as the HartRAO PVSI
Section C. Knowledge (relevant for planetarium trip)
1. Do you know the names of any stars? Can you see any planets in the night sky?
What do they look like?
2. What is the solar system? What [?things?] does it consist of? What shape is it? How do
you know?
3. [Tell me anything you know about the s un] ? if not covered in PMM interview.
4. Why does the sun move across the sky every day?
5. The sun and the moon look the same size in our sky. Are they? Why do you say that?
[Which is really bigger?] Why do they look the same size?
6. Stars at night look like pinpricks of ligh t. Why? What are they? [why are they there?]
7. In the fastest space ship we could build, how long would it take to reach the closest
star outside our solar system? Guess?
8. Why does the moon look different on di fferent nights (and days) throughout the
month?
9. have you heard any planet or space-relate d things in the news at all recently?
Section D. Attitude to Science/Astronomy
1. Do you like school? Probe why/not.
2. What are your 2 favourite subjects at school? Why?
3. What are your 2 least favourite subjects at school? Why?
4. What do you do in your spare time? Wh at TV programmes do you like? Do you read
much? Tell me any books you have read recently.
5. So far in your schooling, have you ever covered things like the sun, the moon,
planets, space stars etc? In wh ich subject did you cover them?
6. Do you find anything to do with space, planets and stars interesting? If so, what?
why? If not, why not?
7. If you were a teacher teaching about space, planets and stars, what would you do
with your students (in your own grade)?
8. Do you believe in aliens? Probe why. Have aliens ever visited earth? Have scientists
found life anywhere other than earth?
9. Do you believe in the horoscope in magazines etc? [astrology]. Probe.
10. Are you religious? What is god?s relationship to the universe?
Appendices
302
Appendix C
C o n d e n s e d versi o n s of Post Visit Inte rvi e w Schedu l e s (white space remove d )
HartRAO Post-Visit Student Inte rview Questions (PoVSI) Code:
Introduction
1 . Introduc i n g myself (remind e r )
A s you know, I am Tony Lelli ot t , a Doctor of Philoso p h y studen t in the School of
Educati o n , Univer s i t y of the Witwate r s r a n d , doing research at the Johannes b u r g
Planet a r i u m and the Hartebe e s h o e k Radi o Astron o my Observ a t o r y in Gauten g ,
South Africa.
2. Purpos e, Context, and Intended Use of the Interview
Thank you for allowing me to observe your class trip to the Johannesburg
Planetarium (pltm) or the Hartebeeshoek Radi o Astronomy Observatory (hartrao). The
purpose of this interview is to find out how your visit to the pltm or hartrao went. I intend to
use the information you provide to get an overall picture of how the visit takes place, and what
the students learn. I will be aski ng some similar questions to t he ones I asked before the trip,
but also some new questions.
3 . Assurin g Confide n t i a l i ty
I assure you of complete confidentiality of any information you share with me, and the
use of pseudonyms instead of actual names in the transcript and the report. No one except
my supervisor and myself will have access to the videos.
4. Permission to Tape
I would like to videotape the conversation for recollection of our discussion. Will you
give me the permission to tape this conversation? [i f the answer is yes, I set the tape on; if the
answer is no, I take notes during the interview].
5. Any Ques tions
Before we start, first, do you have any questi ons about the purpose of the interview,
confidentiality, tape recording, or any other thing you would like to ask me?
Fictitious name of student: _______ _ ___ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _
Grade(s)/Class(es) taken on trip: _______ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _
PoVSI HartRAO
Section B. The Recent Visit. [Answers will be noted by the interviewer on a separate sheet]
6. Where did you go on your [recent] science [or HSS] visit? When did you go?
7. What learning area and/or topic was the visit related to?
8. What do you think was the purpose of the visit?
9. Did you do any work on topic of the visit? Probe for what was done;
tasks/worksheets, any classwork or home work on topic; essay written; etc.
Appendices
303
Section C. Follow-up of questionnaire
1 0 . How is the sun similar or differ ent to stars that we see at night?
11. What is the temperature today (approx.)? What temperature does water boil at? How
hot do you think the sun is? What else c an you tell me about the sun? What can we
use the sun for?
12. Why does the sun move across the sky every day? Use model if you like.
13. The sun and the moon look the same size in our sky. Are they? Why do you say that?
[Which is really bigger?] Why do they look the same size?
14. Stars at night look like pinpric ks of light. Why? What are they?
15. What does the word ?satellite? mean to you? Probe: if DSTV, where is signal from?
What is the shape of the dish? Why is it th is shape? Is the word satellite used in any
other way/meaning? [What about satellite dish]
16. What does the moon look like if you see it every day over the course of a week? Why
does the moon look different on different nights throughout the month?
17. What is gravity? What does it do? What would gravity be like on the moon? {Probe
further if they think there is no gravity on moon] On Jupiter? Why the difference? So
what is the pull of gravity related to? Does the earth?s? gravity have any effect on the
moon? What? What about the moon?s grav. effect on the earth?
18. Have scientists found life anywhere ot her than earth? Do you think there is life
anywhere else in the universe? Do you believe in aliens? Probe why. Have aliens
ever visited earth?
19. Since the visit, have you heard any planet or space-related things on TV, in
magazines or in the news?
Section D. Attitude to Science/Astronomy
11. Now you?ve been to the HartRAO, have your ideas about space, planets and stars
changed at all? What?
12. What things did you most enjoy about the visit? Can be anything.
13. What did you enjoy least? Is ther e anything you disliked about the visit?
14. Have you told anyone about the vi sit? Who? What did you tell them?
15. If your school arranges a visit to Hart ebeeshoek Radio Astronomy Observatory,
would want to you go (again)?
16. The Hartebeeshoek Radio Astronomy Obse rvatory run public visits. Would you want
to visit again together with your family?
17. What sort of job do you wa nt to do when you leave school?
18. Other than today and when you told xx [# D4 above], have you thought about the trip
since? Tell me what.
Planetarium Post-Visit Student Interview (PoVSI)
Sections A and B are same as the HartRAO PoVSI
Section C. Follow-up of questionnaire
1. Do you know the names of any stars? Can you see any planets in the night sky?
What do they look like?
2. What is the solar system? What [?things?] does it consist of? What shape is it? How do
you know?
Appendices
304
3. [Tell me anything you know about the s un] ? if not covered in PMM interview.
4. Why does the sun move across the sky every day? Use model if you like.
5. The sun and the moon look the same size in our sky. Are they? Why do you say that?
[Which is really bigger?] Why do they look the same size?
6. Stars at night look like pinpric ks of light. Why? What are they?
7. In the fastest space ship we could build, how long would it take to reach the closest
star outside our solar system? Guess?
8. Why does the moon look different on di fferent nights (and days) throughout the
month?
9. Have you heard any planet or space-re lated things in the news at all recently?
Section D. Attitude to Science/Astronomy
1. Now you?ve been to the planetarium, have your ideas about space, planets and stars
changed at all? What?
2. What things did you most enjoy about the visit? Can be anything.
3. What did you dislike about the visit?
4. Have you told anyone about the vi sit? Who? What did you tell them?
5. If your school arranges a visit to Planetarium/Hartebeeshoek Radio Astronomy
Observatory, would want to you go (again)?
6. The Planetarium/Hartebeeshoek Radio As tronomy Observatory run public visits.
Would you want to visit again together with your family?
7. What sort of job do you wa nt to do when you leave school?
8. Other than today, have you thought about the trip since? Tell me what.
Appendices
305
Appendix D Ethics sheets and forms
Information Sheet
Research Study on Learning in Astronomy
My name is Tony Lelliott. I?m a member of staff in the School of Education at the University of
the Witwatersrand and also a Doctor of Philo sophy student at the same institution.
I am carryi n g out a study of infor ma l le arning at the Johannes b u r g Planeta r i u m and
the Visitor?s Centre of the Hartebees h o e k Radio Astron o my Observ a t o r y , mainly
looking at how school student s and teacher s learn about astron o my and scienc e as a
result of a school visit to the site. My research will bene fit not only the two
instit u t i o n s where it is taking place, but also the South Af ric a n educa t i o na l syste m in
impro v i n g the learn i n g and teachi n g of scien c e .
I selected your school as representative of many of the schools in South Africa. I would like to
interview you as a [student]/[teac her] who is going to visit one of the above places, as well as
observe the class when you actually visit the planetarium or observatory. In addition, I?d like to
check what you might learn by using a questionn aire that asks about particular astronomical
phenomena. After your return to school, I?d like to interview you again about your experiences
of the visit, and possibly follow this up with a final questionnaire some weeks later. I have
selected you because your school class is intending to conduct a school visit to
Johannesburg Planetarium or Hartebeeshoek Radio Astronomy Observatory in the near
future, and because your school is representati ve of the bulk of schools in South Africa.
Each part of the research will take about 40 minutes to complete , that is the interview before
the visit; the questionnaire during the visit, the post-visit interview and the post-visit
questionnaire. In addition, I?d like to conduct a follow up interview with you several weeks or
months after the visit.
If you agree to take part in my study, I?d like to make it clear that your participation is entirely
voluntary, no harm will come to you, and all in formation will be treated with confidentiality and
anonymity. If you do choose to participate, you may decline to answer any questions, and you
may withdraw from the study at any time. I hope to publish the results of my study in
academic journals. In order to protect conf identiality, all names I use will be fictitious.
I will provide you with a summary of my research results on completion if you would like me
to.
Thank You.
Appendices
306
Informed Consent Form
R e s e a r c h Project: Learning about Astronomy
I, ________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ c o n s e n t to particip a t e in this study conducte d
by Mr. A. Lelliot t for his researc h on lear ning at an observat o r y and a planetari u m.
I realise that no harm will come to me, and that the study is being conduct e d for
educat i o n a l purpo s e s .
I partici p a t e volunt a r i l y and underst a n d that I ma y withdra w from the study at any
time .
I further consent to being video and/or audio recorded as part of the study.
I also underst a n d I have the right to revi ew the question n a i r e s I comple t e and the
transcr i p t s made of our convers a t i o n s before these are used for anal ysis if I so choose.
I can delete or amend any materi a l or retrac t or revise any of my remarks . Everyt h i n g
I say will be kept confi de n t i al by the inter v i e w e r . I will only be ident i fi e d by a
pseudo n y m in the transcr i p t . In additi o n , any pe rsons I refer to in the intervi e w will be
kept confide n t i a l .
Verbat i m quote s from me may be us ed in the researc h report, but th ey will be reported
so that my identi t y is anonymo u s . Any specif i c individ u a l s or course s I refer to will be
given pseud o n y ms . I unders t a n d that the resu lt s of the study may be publ is h e d , but my
identi t y will be anonymo u s .
Na me ____________________________________________________
Signature _________________________________________________
Date ________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Appendices
307
Informed Consent Form ? Parent/Guardian
R e s e a r c h Project: Learning about Astronomy
I, _______________________________, parent/guardian of my ward
______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ consen t to her/hi m partic i p a t i n g in the study
conduct e d by Mr. A. Lelliot t for his res earc h on learnin g at an observa t o r y and a
planet a r i u m.
I realise that no harm will come to my war d, and that the study is being condu c t e d for
educa t i o n a l purpo s e s .
I allow my ward to part i c i p a t e volunt a ri l y and underst a n d that s/he may withdra w
from the study at any time. I further c onsent to my ward being video and audio
recorded as part of the study.
Everyt h i n g my ward says will be kept conf i d e n t i al by the intervi e w e r . My ward will
only be identif i e d by a pseudon y m in the tran script. In addition, any persons my ward
refer s to in the inter v i e w will be kept confi d e n t i al .
Verbat i m quotes from my ward may be used in the resear c h repor t , but they will be
reporte d so that her/his identi t y is anonym o u s . Any specifi c indivi duals or courses my
ward refers to will be given pseudo n yms . I underst a n d that the result s of the study
may be publ is h e d , but my ward?s ident i t y will be anonymo u s .
Na me ____________________________________________________
Signature _________________________________________________
Date ________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Appendices
308
Appendix E Screenshots of ATLAS.ti Hermeneutic Unit
Appendices
309
Appendix F
Student Gravity
Star
concept
Sun
concept SS Size/Scale
Sun
movement
Moon
phases
Parabolic/Satellite
Dish
Mean
score
pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post
ave
pre
ave
post
Difference
in mean
score
scf06 2 n/a 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 3 1 1 2.5 2 n/a n/a 1.8 2.2 0.4
scf08 n/a n/a 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 n/a n/a 2.7 2.7 0.0
scf10 n/a n/a 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2.5 2 3 2.5 2.5 n/a n/a 2.3 2.5 0.3
Helen 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 n/a n/a 2.1 2.6 0.5
scf12 n/a n/a 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 n/a n/a 2.1 2.5 0.4
Fatima n/a n/a 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 n/a n/a 1.5 2.0 0.5
scf17 n/a n/a 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 n/a n/a 1.5 1.8 0.3
scf19 n/a n/a 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 n/a n/a 2.7 2.7 0.0
swo05 2 2 1 2 2 3 n/a n/a 2 3 3 3 3 1 1.5 2 2.1 2.3 0.2
swo06 1 2 1 1 1 2 n/a n/a 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1.4 1.6 0.1
swo07 1 2.5 1 1 2 2 n/a n/a 2 2 3 3 3 2.5 1.5 2 1.9 2.1 0.2
swo14 1 2 1 2 2 2 n/a n/a 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1.5 1.3 1.6 0.4
swo20 2 3 2 2 1 2 n/a n/a 2 3 3 3 2 2.5 2 2 2.0 2.5 0.5
swo22 1 2 1 1 1 1 n/a n/a 1 2 2 3 1 n/a 2 2 1.3 1.8 0.5
Nonkul 0 1 1 1 1 1 n/a n/a 1 1 1 1 1 n/a 2 2 1.0 1.2 0.2
swo29 1 2 2 2 2 2 n/a n/a 2 3 3 2 1 n/a 2.5 3 2.1 2.3 0.3
swo36 1 2 2 2 2 3 n/a n/a 2 2 3 2 2.5 n/a 2 2.5 2.0 2.3 0.3
Neo 1 1 2 2 2 3 n/a n/a 3 3 3 3 2.5 n/a 1.5 2 2.1 2.3 0.2
swo53 1 1.5 1 2 1 2 n/a n/a 2 2 3 1 2 n/a 1 1.5 1.5 1.7 0.2
swo59 2 2.5 1 2 2 2 n/a n/a 1 2 3 3 1 n/a 1 3 1.7 2.4 0.8
swo69 2 3 1 1 3 3 n/a n/a 2 2 3 3 1 n/a 2 2.5 2.2 2.4 0.3
Brenda 1 2 1 2 2 3 n/a n/a 2 3 3 3 1 n/a 2.5 3 1.9 2.7 0.8
tsw02 1 3 1 1 2 2 n/a n/a 2 2 1 3 1 1 1.5 2 1.4 2.0 0.6
Botho 1 2 2 3 2 2 n/a n/a 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1.6 1.9 0.3
tsw08 2 2 1 1 2 2 n/a n/a 2 2 1 1 1 1 1.5 2 1.5 1.6 0.1
Appendices
310
Student Gravity
Star
concept
Sun
concept SS Size/Scale
Sun
movement
Moon
phases
Parabolic/Satellite
Dish
Mean
score
pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post
ave
pre
ave
post
Difference
in mean
score
tsw15 1 2 1 1 1 2 n/a n/a 2 3 3 3 2 2.5 2 3 1.7 2.4 0.6
vho02 2 2.5 2 2 3 3 n/a n/a 3 3 3 3 3 n/a 2 2.5 2.5 2.7 0.2
vho06 1 1.5 1 2 2 3 n/a n/a 2 3 2 2 2 n/a 2 3 1.7 2.4 0.8
vho09 1 1 2 2 1 1 n/a n/a 1 1 1 1 1 n/a 1 1 1.2 1.2 0.0
vho10 2 2 2 2 2 3 n/a n/a 2 2. 5 3 3 1 n/a 3 3 2.3 2.6 0.3
vho11 1 1 1 1 3 3 n/a n/a 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1.6 1.7 0.1
vho12 3 3 2 2 3 3 n/a n/a 3 3 3 2 1 n/a 1.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 0.0
vho13 2 2 2 2 2 2 n/a n/a 2 2 2 3 1 n/a 2 2 2.0 2.2 0.2
John 3 3 3 3 3 3 n/a n/a 3 3 2 3 3 n/a 3 3 2.8 3.0 0.2
Ave 1.5 2.1 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.4 2.1 2.3 2.0 2.4 2.2 2.3 1. 7 1.7 1.7 2.2 1.8 2.1 0.3
Appendices
311
Appendix G
O r i g i n a l catego r i s a t i o n scheme
Post- v i si t lear n i n g
Pre-vi s i t catego r y 1 2 3
Low swo07 a
swo26 aN k u l u l e k o *
vho09 a
vho11 a
tsw04 a
tsw08 a
scf17 ? Kefi lwe a
swo06 ? Zanele a
swo14 can?t code
swo22 a
swo59 a
swo70 a
tsw02 a
swo53 a
vho06 a
scf15 ? Fatima a*
Mediu m swo42 ? Neo a*
vho13 a
These 2 very simil a r :
neither learnt much,
despite good pre-
kno w l e d g e .
scf06 a
swo29 a
swo36 a
tsw15
vho10
scf11 ? Helen a*
scf12
swo05
swo20
High scf08
scf10
scf19
swo69
vho02
vho12
vho16 - John a*
?
a- means that the PDs have been recoded in December 2005- early 2006.
* means that a portrai t has been ?comple t e d ? (early 2006) incl HC & ILF discussion.
The 5 most impro v e d accor d i n g to the Revise d Class i f i c a t i o n are:
scf15 (Fatma), swo05, swo59, tsw15 and vho06.
Appendices
312
Appendix H
Scatterg r a m of student s ? pre- and post-vi s i t mean scores recalcu l a t e d using the Rasch
techni q u e .
-2. 5
-1. 5
-0. 5
0. 5
1. 5
2. 5
-2. 5 -1. 5 -0. 5 0. 5 1. 5 2. 5
Rasch Mean score pre-visit
Ras
ch Me
an
s
cor
e
po
st
-vis
it
Appendices
313
Appendix I
A s t r o n o my - r e l a t e d Vocabu l a r y used by student s
Student
code
S t u d e n t
name
Nu mber
of
words
used in
pre-vi s i t
PMMs
Additi o n a l
numbe r of
words
used in
post- v i s i t
PMMs
scf06 Sibongile 29 6
scf08 Susan 24 11
scf10 Lara 14 15
scf11 Helen 16 9
scf12 Sarah 19 2
scf15 Fatima 26 7
scf17 Kitso 13 3
scf19 Antonia 28 8
swo05 Sipho 12 7
swo06 Zanele 17 1
swo07 Bhekiwe 22 1
swo14 Mpho 13 10
swo20 Banyana 20 10
swo22 Ntobeko 21 0
swo26 Nkululeko 18 7
swo29 Douglas 8 6
swo36 Judy 23 3
swo42 Neo 7 11
swo53 Batsile 10 5
swo59 Thapiso 13 2
swo69 Phillip 23 4
swo70 Brenda 19 9
tsw02 Tlotlo 17 11
tsw04 Botho 11 9
tsw08 Fane 17 11
tsw15 Nnaniki 26 12
vho02 Paul 30 4
vho06 Vicky 27 2
vho09 Theresa 22 8
vho10 Lynn 23 8
vho11 Cathy 19 1
vho12 Richard 37 10
vho13 Ross 31 4
vho16 John 36 14
Mean 20.3235 3 6.79411 8
SD 7.53062 7 4.04354 6
Appendices
314
Appendix J: Personal Meaning Maps
N o n k u l u l e k o ? s pre-vi s i t Person a l Meanin g Map
Appendices
315
Nonkululeko?s post-visit Personal Meaning Map
Appendices
316
Botho? s pre-vi s i t Pe rsona l Meaning Map
Appendices
317
Botho? s post-v i s i t Person a l Meanin g Map
Appendices
318
Neo?s pre- and post-vis it Personal Meaning Map
Appendices
319
John?s post-v i s i t Pers onal Meaning Map
Appendices
320
Fatima ? s pre- and post-v i s i t Person a l Meanin g Map
Appendices
321
Brenda?s pre- and post-vi s i t Persona l Meaning Map
Appendices
322
Helen?s pre- and post-vis it Persona l Meaning Map
Appendices
323
Appendix K
Getting the most from your visit to a museum or hands-on centre
Before you go:
? T h i n k about the purpose of your visi t and its position in your scheme of work. Is the visit to give
general experie n c e and stimula t i o n as an introdu c t i o n to the topic? Is it to support specific learning
of certa i n conc e p t s? Is it to consoli d a t e teachi n g that has already taken place?
? V i s i t the mu seum, or if you can't , visit its webs ite or talk with someone who has been before.
? P l a n for what scienti f i c concep t s and skills s hould be met before the visit and what should be
followed - u p back at school.
? D e c i d e what part of the exhibit i o n or what exhib i t s will form the focus for learni n g and/ o r wheth er
your pupils need to follow a set route or sequence.
? F i n d out what facili t i e s and serv ices the museum offers, e.g. whet h e r the museu m has 'expl a i n e r s '
to assist pupils. a classroom where work can be followed-up or works ho p activi t i e s led by the
museum 's educat i o n servic e . Deci de how you will use these servic e s .
? F i n d out what additio n a l adult suppo rt is availab l e and can be provi de d for the visit, e.g. parents ,
studen t teache r s , etc.
? D e c i d e how adults might be informe d and support e d so that they can offer help to pupils at the
museum, e.g. devise prompt sheets or use ones provid e d by the museum.
A t the museum:
? P r o v i d e some time and space for pupils to orient a t e themse l v e s and 'play'. This allows the class to
have some free explor a t i o n time and to di ssi p a t e some of their initi al 'energ y '.
? Tell the class what you exp ect them to do. It is usually better fo r pupils to work in pairs or small
groups so that social intera c t ion at exhibits can occur.
? Y o u may wa nt to offer some limited guidan c e or prompt s , e.g. by way of a 'trail card'. Record
experien c e s , e.g. by taking digital photographs or making a video.
F ollowing your visit:
? A s k pupils to tell you what they remembe r e d mo st from their visit. What were they impres s e d by?
What new things did they learn?
? Allow pupils to develop their learning by broadcas ting their experiences to others. You could ask
them to do this by prepari n g and sharing poste rs and displays or by giving a presenta t i o n .
? U s e activi t i es and pract i ca l tasks that enhan c e and devel o p the learni n g exper i e nc e s at the
museum. Avoid trying to replic a t e what they did at the museum.
? R e f e r back to experie n c e s at the mus eum, not only in the topic but in future lesson s as well. This
helps pupil s to value the experi e n c e and to consoli d a t e learnin g by integra t i n g gains from the
infor ma l situ a t i o n in the muse u m with the more forma l lear ni n g in school .
From: Braun d, M. (2004 ) . Lear n in g scien c e at muse u ms and hands -o n centr e s . In Braun d, M. & Reiss , M. (Eds .) , Learn ing
Scien ce Outside the Classroom (pp . 113- 128 ). Londo n : Rou tled g eFalmer .