Emerging Conceptual Understanding of Complex ... - Springer Link

C 2005) Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 14, Nos. 5/6, December 2005 ( DOI: 10.1007/s10956-005-0221-3

Emerging Conceptual Understanding of Complex Astronomical Phenomena by Using a Virtual Solar System Elhanan Gazit,1,3 Yoav Yair,2 and David Chen1

This study describes high school students’ conceptual development of the basic astronomical phenomena during real-time interactions with a Virtual Solar System (VSS). The VSS is a non-immersive virtual environment which has a dynamic frame of reference that can be altered by the user. Ten 10th grade students were given tasks containing a set of observe– explain questions without mentoring. The findings showed that all participants used the VSS as a visual thinking tool and developed a scientific understanding of the causes of the day– night phenomena. However, alternative dynamic misconceptions of the Earth–Moon–Sun system emerged as a result of (1) cognitive difficulty in coordinating visual information from different perspectives; (2) misinterpreting salient features of the VSS visual representation; (3) ignoring the 3D nature of the Moon’s relative motion, together with incorrect perception of the Moon’s and the Earth’s relative size and distance; and (4) the inability to mentally shift away from the Earth’s frame of reference. These findings have significant bearing on our understanding of the educational potential and possible pitfalls of learning via virtual reality environments. The learning should be accompanied by suitable scaffolding and guided reflection to minimize the emergence of alternative astronomical conceptions. Designing additional navigation tools would empower the learners’ perceptual and cognitive system. KEY WORDS: virtual reality; astronomy education; analyzing learning interactions.

INTRODUCTION

taneously (Barab et al., 2000; Parker and Heywood, 1998). Previous studies have reported that students of all ages as well as teachers hold intuitive misconceptions about astronomy (Bar, 2000; Sharp, 1996). For example, most students hold intuitive models that view the changes of the Earth’s distance from the Sun as the cause for the annual cycle of the seasons. The lunar phases and the eclipse phenomena involve the Earth, the Moon, and the Sun, which have different positions and relative motions in the 3D space. Several studies have found that students confused the moon’s position at full moon with its lunar eclipse position (Keating et al., 2002). Nussbaum (1985) argued that the cognitive difficulty of abandoning our geocentric viewpoint is a fundamental factor in constructing these misconceptions. Vosniadou and Brewer (1994) described three main mental models:

The Solar System is a highly complex abstract scientific concept. Its dynamic nature, vast spatial dimensions, and different time scale cannot be perceived directly by the senses. In order to understand basic astronomical phenomena such as the day–night cycle, seasonal changes, moon’s phases and eclipses, one must visualize the relative motions and positions of the planetary objects in 3D space, as these may appear from different perspectives simul1 The

School of Education, Tel-Aviv University, Ramat-Aviv, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel. 2 Department of Life and Natural Sciences, The Open University of Israel, Ra’anana 43107, Israel. 3 To whom correspondence should be addressed; e-mail: gazit@ hait.ac.il

459 C 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 1059-0145/05/1200-0459/0

460 the intuitive model, the synthetic model, and the scientific model. The intuitive mental model is based primarily on a direct perception of the world. For example, the Earth is considered to be the center of the Solar System, and the sun and all planetary objects revolve around it. The scientific model is compatible with the current scientific paradigm, and the synthetic model is a mix between the intuitive and the scientific model. Sharp (1996) and Baxter (1989) have found that many students hold intuitive mental models of the Solar System, which resembled the pre-Copernican conceptions. Many virtual reality (VR) environments are being used to enhance students’ conceptual development of abstract scientific phenomena (Youngbult, 1998). In a report to the National Science Foundation (NSF), Furness et al. (1997) discussed the various attributes of VR with respect to learning, and put a special focus on the potential benefits of using VR in teaching the complex issue of Global Change. The term “Global Change” refers to a Global Climate Change. In this context, we discuss a virtual reality environment which represents complex scientific phenomena that can be manipulated for the learning about the dynamic changes in the global climate. Furness et al. (1997) state as a general principle that VR improves learning, when it does, by providing the learners with new, direct experiences of phenomena they could not have experienced before, either in direct interaction with the real world or using other technologies (p. 7). Among the other principles that apply to VR in the context of education, Furness et al. (1997) suggested that VR is engaging and seductive, and can teach complex topics with less need to simplify them. In a VR environment learners can easily and without effort visit places and view objects from different points of view, and can experiment by manipulating variables that cannot be manipulated in the real world. This emphasizes the notion that VR is ideal for letting students explore things and construct their own knowledge. Winn (1997) further discussed the use of VR for studying Global Change and concluded that the variety of modalities and symbolic forms VR offer is likely to reach more students than formal teaching. Much like Global Change, astronomy is a complex subject matter that is rooted in the K-12 science curriculum. Astronomy deals with basic aspects of the natural world, which students are directly exposed to from early childhood, and is also an important component of their after school culture (i.e. computer games, science-fiction films, and TV programs).

Gazit, Yair, and Chen Lowe (1999) reported that using dynamic meteorological simulations for conceptual understanding yield the development of declarative mental models which focused on elements from a local level frame of reference, without any reference to the global picture. Lowe (1999) argued that despite common beliefs that view the dynamic and visual representations as superior to static representations, dynamic simulations might result in some negative impacts on learning. Similar findings on the use of dynamic simulations for the learning of mathematics and physics were reported elsewhere (Eshach and Schwartz, 2002; Monaghan and Clement, 2000). De Jong and Swaak (2001) claim that open simulation learning environments should support learners at different stages, and enable the learners to gain the responsibility and control over their learning process. Resnick (2002) continues this line of thought, stating that there is a need for a new paradigm that views computers as a creative medium for building meaningful knowledge. Keating et al. (2002) used a VRML system in which the students built their own virtual representations of the Sun–Earth–Moon system. Keating et al. (2002) evaluated the students’ conceptual understanding and summarized their findings by stating that 3D computer modeling afforded students the ability to visualize abstract 3D concepts such as the line of nodes, and transform them into conceptual tools, which in turn, supported the development of scientifically sophisticated conceptual understandings of many basic astronomical topics. However, there were instances where students’ conceptual understanding was incomplete and frequently hybridized with their existing conceptions (2002, p. 261). Winn (1993) and Chen (1998) suggest that VR environments offer a new visual learning experience, which has not been systematically studied yet.

The Virtual Solar System (VSS) The VSS used in our study is a non-immersive 3D virtual environment. The VSS which represents the Solar System includes the Sun and the planetary objects. It was developed as part of a novel and powerful learning environment for studying astronomy through a joint effort of the Center for Education Technology (CET) and the Tel-Aviv University’s Science and Technology Education Center (SATEC). The VSS is a major component within the “Touch the Sky Touch the Universe” CDROM, which was originally developed for the Israeli

Complex Astronomical Phenomena by Using VSS educational system and is widely used in schools throughout the country. An English version was developed in 2001 and is now available as a commercial product by Brittanica (there are also translations to German, French, Spanish, Hungarian, and other European languages). Newer versions of the software include a “fly-overterrain” above the Lunar and Martian surfaces (Yair et al., 2003). The VSS developed by Yair et al. (2001) shows the planetary objects as they revolve in their orbits against the constant background of the Milky Way and the stars. The Solar System was scaled down while the Keplerian motion was kept at the correct relative rates. High-resolution NASA images were used to construct the objects, and their numerical data was kept with great accuracy. The computer mouse interface is used to change one’s viewpoint while “flying” in 3D space. The orientation difficulties and “vertigo” feeling which may accompany learning in a virtual environment is minimized by the display of a traditional, 2D dynamic map of the Solar System. A dynamic camera icon that is projected on the map represents the user’s location and observation point with respect to the viewed object and to the entire Solar System. This map helps to navigate and orient the user, and facilitates an easier learning experience. The user has a navigational “remote control” with arrows to steer and change the orientation in 3D space. The VSS has a dynamic frame of reference, which can be altered by selecting different objects. Each time an object is selected by a mouse click, it becomes the VSS’s new computerized frame of reference. Additionally, there are four computerized modes of observation which the user can choose from: a Free-Mode, a Sun-in-Site mode, a planetary mode, and a geocentric mode (an elaborated description regarding the four observation modes appears in Yair et al., 2001). Moreover, the user can change the pace of the entire system by accelerating or slowing the rotation and revolution rates. The VSS is a strong exploratory tool which enables the investigation of how basic phenomena would change as a result of these modifications. “What if” questions are useful for elucidating complex astronomical phenomena (Comins, 1999). The VSS allows a direct study of questions like “what would happen if the Earth and Moon revolved faster,” where the consequences are apparent immediately on the computer screen. Our main goals in this study were to describe and analyze the conceptual development of high school students’ understanding of astronomical phenomena during real-time interactions with a virtual

461 Solar System (VSS), and to monitor the possible emergence of alternative concepts.

METHOD A microdevelopment approach was selected for studying a real-time process. Microdevelopment is defined as the process of change in abilities, knowledge, and understanding occurring during short-time spans (Granott and Parziale, 2002). The idea behind the microdevelopment approach is to give scientists a better sense of how learning occurs in real time, rather than having to rely on snapshots of what children learn at particular points. Psychologists typically assess children’s learning by giving a pretest to a group of children, putting an educational intervention in place, and then returning several weeks or months later to administer a posttest. By contrast, a microdevelopmental approach involves videotaping children actions as they deal with a specific task, coding the responses or words and gestures as they work, and then systematically analyzing all of the information. A systematic examination of the learner’s realtime interactions and the subsequent qualitative and quantitative changes in their behaviors and thinking was designed, in order to reveal the hidden patterns of their learning processes (Gazit and Chen, 2003). Nine 10th grade students (5 boys and 4 girls) aged 15–16 years volunteered to participate in the study. Their overall grades were above the average (B and higher). A pretest questionnaire was designed together with rubrics to score students’ performance, in order to survey the students’ background and existing preconceptions (see Tables I and II. The questions were derived from the alternative conception research literature (Baxter, 1989; Keating et al., 2002; Sharp, 1996;) and based on in-depth discussions with experts in astronomy education from Tel-Aviv University and from the Open University of Israel in Ra’anana (see Appendix B—Students performance). Both the researcher and the research assistant scored the pre-questionnaire by using rubrics which were developed for each question on the basis of literature survey. An elaborated comparison analysis of the pre–post questionnaire results appears in Gazit et al. (in preparation). The study was conducted at the university lab in individual sessions with each student, each lasting between 1.5 and 2 h. Each of the sessions was repeated four times with different tasks. Following

462

Gazit, Yair, and Chen Table I. Rubric Used to Evaluate Question 1 (The Solar System as a Complex System) Score 0 1

2

3

4

Category No conception Incomplete/inaccurate understanding based on a particle 2D model Incomplete/inaccurate understanding based on a System 2D model Partial scientific understanding based on 3D System model Complete scientific understanding based on a 3D system model

Response Students are unable to articulate a response to the question Students hold a 2D particle model (static or dynamic) of the Solar System. Students describe only a few planetary objects (2–3). Students hold a holistic dynamic 2D model of the Solar System. Students describe the Solar System as a group of Planets and Moons which revolve around the Sun on the same plane. Students describe the Solar System as a dynamic 3D model which consists of revolving planets in different planes. Students cannot explain the physics which govern the system. Students describe the Solar System as a complex system which consists of inner and outer planets. Students describe the relative motions of the subsystem (Planets and Moons) on different planes and can explain the physical laws which govern the system, such as Kepler laws and Newton laws of gravity.

a free exploration task session, each student was given two tasks containing a set of observe–explain questions regarding the Sun–Earth–Moon system, without mentoring during the sessions. The questions were used for examining the students’ learning interactions via the VSS, and their real-time conceptual understanding of the basic astronomical phenomena. Each task emphasized different phenomena. The first task focused on the annual seasonal cycle. The second task focused on the moon’s relative motion in space and the formation of the lunar phases (see Appendix C). Each participant’s real-time actions were coded and analyzed within a 0.1 s time resolution, using the Observer software. The Observer is a software package for the collection, management, analysis, and presentation of observational data (Noldus et al., 2000). One can use it to record activities, postures, movements, positions, facial expressions, social interactions, or any other aspect of human or animal behavior.

The coding scheme consisted of two levels: the level of the participants’ basic interaction behaviors and the level of the participants’ discourse analysis. The videotapes were transcribed verbatim and an inductive think-aloud analysis was performed in which patterns, themes, and categories of analysis were extracted from the data (Patton, 1990). The participants’ think-aloud analysis focused on the ways in which the participants developed the astronomical phenomena they were investigating. The categories were extracted following extensive systematic observation and by using multi-method triangulation for establishing the internal validity of the categories and themes (Meijer et al., 2002). Three kinds of data were used for triangulation: analyzing the think-aloud protocol, analyzing the semi-constructed interviews and the analysis of the conceptual understanding development based on the posttest questionnaire. It is important to note that the coding scheme was not set in advance, but rather developed after numerous observations. Two independent coders, the researcher

Table II. Rubric Used to Evaluate Question 2 and 3 (Planets’ Relative Size and Relative Distance From the Sun) Score

Category

0 1

No conception Confused

2

Incomplete/inaccurate understanding

3

Partial scientific understanding

4

Complete scientific understanding

Response Students are unable to articulate a response to the question. Students confused planets’ relative sizes and relative distances from the Sun. Students know the relative size and ordinal distance from the Sun of the most distant planet and the closest planet, but are confused about the rest of the planets. Students know the relative size and ordinal distance of the inner belt planets but hold inaccurate understanding of the planets within the two belts. Students have correct understanding regarding the relative size of all nine planets and their relative ordinal distance from the Sun.

Complex Astronomical Phenomena by Using VSS

463

Fig. 1. Total sum of participants’ basic interactions during the “to the far side of the moon” task (n = 1844).

and a research assistant coded a 2-h video for reliability testing. The reliability was found to be 95% for the learners’ actions (the first level of analysis) and 86% for the think-aloud protocol analysis (the second level of analysis). Inter-coder reliability was found to be 98% for the first level of analysis, and 92% for the second level of analysis. FINDINGS In this section, we shall describe the findings with respect to the two levels of analysis. The first level contained the actions made by the participants as seen on the screen from their viewpoint. The second level consisted of analyzing what the participant said during the session, according to the coding scheme. The first level of coding yielded 1844 basic interactions performed by the participants during the task: (1) Selecting an object by clicking on it or by pointing the cursor on it; (2) Selecting a computerized observational mode by clicking on the Navigator built-in software tool for orientation and for controlling the system’s parameters; (3) Altering the point of view by pointing the cursor in different directions and clicking; (4) Shifting between objects by clicking on an object, or by selecting them from the 2D guidemap or the text menu; (5) Stopping or speeding-up the systems’ motion pace by changing the pace arrow in the Navigator.

Figure 1 summarizes the distributions of the basic interactions among the 10 participants. The range of basic interactions performed by the participants’ frequencies (70–282 interactions) demonstrates the individual variability found in performing the task. Three participants performed over 250 basic interactions (Students A, B, and C), while another three participants performed less than 150 basic interactions (Students H, I, and J). In addition, the graph demonstrates the difference in the relative frequencies of the basic interactions among participants. For example, three participants (Students A, D, and G) performed a relatively large amount of interactions involving the selection of an object for observation, while other participants (Students C and H) performed a relatively large number of interactions involving altering their point of view with respect to the object. Among all 10 participants the frequency for changing the systems’ motion pace was relatively low. The complexity level of the question is determined by the numbers of objects included in the astronomical phenomena and by their relative motion (Chen and Stroup, 1993). For example, the day and night phenomena involves two celestial objects: the Sun and the Earth, while the Moon phases involved three objects which move in space in different plains. In order to examine the relationship between the complexity level of the specific question asked during the task and the level of basic interaction

464

Gazit, Yair, and Chen

Fig. 2. Mean frequencies average distribution of the 10 participants’ basic interactions across three questions within the “to the far side of the moon” task.

performed by the participants, the frequencies’ mean average of basic interactions of the 10 participants was calculated. Figure 2 shows the mean frequencies distribution for the five interaction behaviors while answering three different questions of the “To the Far Side of the Moon” task: (1) The relative motion of the Moon with respect to the Earth; (2) The relative motion of the Moon with respect to the Sun; and (3) Moon phases. As can be seen from Fig. 2, there is a relationship between the complexity level of the question and the participants’ mean level of interactivity. The level of interactivity in all five basic interaction behaviors was found to be much higher in the Sun–Moon relative motions observe–explain question, than in the Earth–Moon relative motion question. The highest level of interactivity was found in the moon phases observe–explain question, in three different basic interactions: (1) altering the point of view within the observational mode, (2) changing the system’s rate of motion, and (3) drawing motion and force trajectories on-screen using the mouse. This relation appears in the participants’ mean time of engagement in the questions as well (Earth–Moon 83.3 s, Sun–Moon 151 s, Lunar phases 232 s). However, this description served only as a “snapshot” of the basic interactions. In order to describe the learning as a process, the coming section will describe the combination of the basic interactions and

the development of conceptual understanding as unfolded over time while participants performed the task. First, with respect to the day–night phenomena, the findings suggest a positive outcome of the VSS interactions, as all 10 participants instantly detected and interoperated correctly the different illumination changes of the Earth and the Moon surfaces caused by their self-rotation motion. For example, Student A (a 16-year-old girl) stated after only 4 s from the beginning of the task that I’m certain that the day–night phenomena exists on the Moon [in Planetary observational mode], because one area which was illuminated before is in darkness now . . . Here one can see it [speed up the system pace] . . . no, I’m not in the right angle [change to Stationary observational Mode] . . . In this position I can see that it was illuminated and now it’s not.

Another positive outcome was the use of the VSS as a thinking tool by drawing on screen with the computer mouse the trajectories of the planets and moons, and the directions of the Solar radiation (where light is coming from) on screen with the mouse. All 10 participants built a complex model of the Earth–Moon–Sun system, and two of them noticed the importance of the 5◦ tilt of the moon’s orbital plane with respect to the ecliptic. One student discovered that the Moon revolves


465

Fig. 3. Using the VSS as a visual thinking tool.

around the Earth in a non-monotonic pace, stating that The gravitational forces employed by the Earth on the Moon, resulted in an effect like a carouselle, similar to a rock attached to a string.

The following example illustrates the use of the VSS as a visual thinking tool.

Example 1: The VSS as a Powerful Visual Thinking Tool Student B (a 15-year-old boy) commented that (see Fig. 3) “I cannot see the moon and the Sun together, but one can imagine it . . . Like a flower . . . if we imagine that the Earth is the Sun, and around the Moon there is another Moon [the Moon is imagined to be the Earth] it will move like this” [draws on screen a flower petals pattern].

Student B builds a new frame of reference to show the Moon–Sun relative motion. By imagining the Earth as the Sun, and the Moon as the Earth, he is able to draw on screen with his mouse the apparent motion of the imaginary moon. This is an advanced

skill, which utilizes the VSS as a visual thinking tool. On the other end, seven students that exhibited a high level of interactivity within the VSS developed alternative dynamic models. Here are a few examples of the unpredicted misconceptions which emerged during the VSS sessions: 1. “The Moon does not spin around its axis because it is held on both sides by its orbit path. It moves slowly with respect to its orbit, compared to the Earth’s motion.” 2. “The Moon is illuminated from all sides, but it does not spin on its axis.” 3. “The dark Side of the Moon is illuminated because the Moon is constantly approaching the Sun and withdrawing from it.” 4. “The solar eclipse occurs when the Earth, the Moon and the Sun are on the same line. This happens once a month on Earth and the same happened on the Moon. If we were on the Moon we could see the Sun eclipse after two weeks.” The emergent nature of the participants’ learning processes is evident in examples 2 and 3.

466

Gazit, Yair, and Chen

Fig. 4. Decision making in a dynamic VSS.

Example 2: The Cognitive Difficulty of Making Decisions in a Dynamic VSS, Which has no Fixed Frame of Reference (The researchers’ comments are given in brackets. Each entry represents 1 s.) Student C (a 15.7-year-old boy): “Does the moon spin around itself?” (Generates new question) Student C: “No, it stands still . . . or it spins very slowly.” (The student cannot decide on the basis of the Stationary observational mode. He changes to an alternative planetary observational mode and his points of view within this observational mode.) Student C: “Ok, let’s do the same inquiry with the Earth.” (The student selects the Earth, zooms-in, and repeats his sequence of actions.) Student C: “You see! It spins. It spins faster than the spin of these lines. [He points on the Earth orbit and “fly” back to observe the moon, Fig. 4] and on the Moon it doesn’t happen, therefore in my opinion the Moon doesn’t spin” (see Fig. 4). This example demonstrates the cognitive difficulty student C experiences when he needs to make a decision regarding dynamic astronomical phenomena, without a fixed frame of reference. Focusing on the Moon, which is the current frame of reference, the student cannot decide if the Moon spins, because changing the observational mode results in

different visual information. His unawareness of his own dynamic point of view contributes to the confusion. However, he chooses to focus on the Moon’s orbit’s graphic representation (a colored line). This serves him as a “visual anchor,” an alternative stable frame of reference in the dynamic VSS. By comparing the Moon’s relative motion with the Earth’s relative motion, the student builds a misconception according to which the Moon does not spin on its axis.

Example 3: The Emergence of an Intuitive Dynamic Model of the Earth–Moon–Sun System Student D (a 16-year-old boy) commented that The Far Side of the moon is always dark . . . No, it’s half-dark, half- illuminated, because the Moon doesn’t spin. Now it spins. No, it does not turn to the Earth, because it does not spin.

Following that Student D said that (see Fig. 5) The Moon revolves around the Earth. The Earth is revolving around the Sun, so the Moon too is moving, with one side fixed in a way that it is always facing the Sun.

This example demonstrates the emergent nature of the learning process within the VSS. The emergence of a misconception about the Moon’s


467

Fig. 5. The emergence of an intuitive dynamic model of the Earth–Moon–Sun system.

relative motion and of the Moon’s illumination occurred probably because of his inability to coordinate visual information emanating from different frames of reference together with his inability to break from the Earth’s (local) frame of reference. Moreover, it might be the result of the VSS software’s graphic resolution. All these factors contributed to the emergence of an erroneous intuitive dynamic model of the Sun–Earth–Moon system.

DISCUSSION The conceptual development within the VSS has an emergent nature, as the learners control their own learning process. This enables a flexible construction of conceptual understanding based on the ability to observe the phenomena from different perspectives. Two main conclusions can be drawn from our study. First, the VSS can be used as a visual thinking tool for the development of a complex cognitive model of the astronomical phenomena under study. This ability could support students that experience difficulties in the learning of abstract scientific concepts via formal teaching. This conclusion is congruent with Keating et al. (2002) conclusion that used a VRML system in which the students built their own virtual representations of the Sun–Earth– Moon system. The present VSS is not a software tool as such, but rather a dynamic simulation, based on actual NASA images of more than 90 celestial objects within the solar system. The learning process

within the VSS was based on the active manipulation of four predefined different frames of reference and additional manipulation of the point of view within the computerized frame of references. In addition, the tasks given to the students were different. The students were asked to observe and explain the phenomena under study by manipulating an existing dynamic virtual representation of the solar system. Despite the difference between the two different virtual reality environments and between the task and scaffolding given to the students, we found that similarly the participants used the VSS as a visual thinking tool. However, Keatning et al. (2002) focused on the learning outcomes regarding the conceptual understanding of the basic astronomical phenomena by comparing pretest–posttest results and interviews. The current study’s main focus was on the real-time learning processes that occur while the students explore the VSS. Thus, this study’s main contribution lay in the rich description of the interactions and the mapping of the real-time development of the conceptual understanding of the basic astronomical phenomena. Recent development of other innovative immersive virtual reality environments for the learning of complex astronomical phenomena gives rise to new questions regarding the development of scientific conceptual understanding and the effect of presence on students’ attention and motivation (Lee et al., 2005). Thus, it is recommended to perform collaborative comparative studies of different virtual learning environments in science and technology. Moreover, the current study results show that a high interactive

468 performance by students might not be sufficient for the development of scientific conceptual understanding. Second, the alternative dynamic misconceptions regarding the basic astronomical phenomena might result from at least five separate reasons: (1) Cognitive difficulty in coordinating visual information emanating from different frames of references; (2) Misinterpreting salient features of the VSS’s visual representation; (3) Ignoring the 3D nature of the Moon’s relative motion, together with an incorrect perception of the relative sizes and distances of the Moon and the Earth; (4) The inability to mentally shift away from the Earth’s frame of reference, and (5) The students’ pre-knowledge regarding the basic astronomical concepts. The misconceptions reported in the study might be a specific and direct result of the interaction with the VSS. On the other hand, they might emerge as a result of basic universal cognitive tendencies which where empowered by the VSS’s unique features. For example, misinterpreting the Moon’s relative motion was based on the comparison of the Earth and Moon rotation rates with respect to their lines of orbit. The tendency of making decisions on the basis of “stable visual anchors” which lead to the misinterpretation could be a universal attribute of learning via dynamic virtual environments which deserve additional research. The findings empirical support the basic disposition of the vision science field which regarding “Visual perception” as “the acquisition of knowledge this means that vision is fundamentally a cognitive activity, distinct from purely optical processes such as photographic ones” (Palmer, 1999, p. 5). Moreover, the current study elaborates Vosniadou et al. (2001) theoretical assumption regarding the importance of pre-knowledge to the development of scientific understanding while using dynamic digital environments. In sum, these findings have significant bearing on our understanding of the potential and pitfalls of learning via virtual reality environments. This new kind of learning should therefore be accompanied by suitable scaffolding and guided reflection. Indeed, one may infer that the emergence of misconceptions is a direct consequence of the lack of such mentoring. A well-thought-out interaction with a teacher or a built-in smart agent could reduce or prevent them. Enhanced introduction tutorials which focus on the unique VSS features, a built-in playback feature which affords real-time peer feed-

Gazit, Yair, and Chen back, planned tasks which contain hints and address possible pitfalls, to name a few, could support a better scientific understanding. Recently, Yair et al. (2003) suggested a structured mediation process based on a “Thinking Journey” methodology, by which teachers can guide their students to use the VSS to explore the Moon and the planet Mars. The mediated activities gradually lead the students, through observe–deduce questions, to higher and more complex tasks in planetary science. Such activities could reduce the danger of self-constructed misconceptions that may emanate from the powerful 3D representations within the VSS. Thus, it is recommended that the design of virtual environments should include orientation and navigation tools in order to empower learners’ perceptual and cognitive system.

APPENDIX A: THE BASIC ASTRONOMICAL QUESTIONNAIRE AND RUBRICS The questions were presented to the students in the following order: Question 1: The Solar System as a complex system: Draw a diagram of the Solar system and describe it in your own words. Question 2: The Solar System as a complex system: List the planets which are part of the Solar System according to their relative size (from the smallest to the largest) Question 3: The Solar System as a complex system: List the planets which are part of the Solar System according to their relative distance from the Sun (from the closest to the furthest). Question 4: The day–night phenomena Draw a diagram of the Earth’s Day–Night phenomena and explain it. Does it occur on the Moon as well? Does it also occur on other planets? Question 5: The seasons cycle phenomena: What causes the summer and winter seasons on Earth? Draw a diagram and explain. Question 6: Moon phases: Draw the position of the Earth, Moon, and Sun while observing a full Moon, a new Moon, and a Lunar Eclipse from the Earth. Describe the differences and similarities between a Full Moon and a lunar eclipse. What are the factors which affect the changes of the Moon’s illumination?


469

APPENDIX B: STUDENT RUBRIC PERFORMANCE ON THE PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONS

Student AR NB MI EY AL SV AN DO OR VIK Total Average Rubric category SD

Pretest Q1: Solar system as a complex system

Pretest Q2: Planets’ relative size

Pretest Q3: Planets’ relative distance from Sun

Pretest Q4: The day–night phenomena

Pretest Q5: The seasons phenomena

Question 6: Moon phases

1 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 3

1 0 0 1 1 0 3 1 1 1

1 1 1 3 1 0 2 0 3 3

1 3 4 1 4 4 4 4 3 4

1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 0 2

2 3 3 2 0 3 2 2 0 3

20 2.0 PU 0.66

9 0.9 C 0.87

15 1.5 C/PU 1.18

32 3.2 IU 1.23

14 1.4 C/PU 0.97

20 2.0 PU 1.15

Note. 4: CU (complete understanding); 3: IU (incomplete understanding); 2: PU (partial understanding); 1: C (confused); 0: NC (no conception).

APPENDIX C: THE “TO THE FAR SIDE OF THE MOON” TASK The British rock band “The Pink Floyd” released an album in the 1970s entitled, “The Dark Side of the Moon.” We will use the VSS to “fly” to the Far Side of the Moon and to explore the Moon’s special attributes. First, click on the Moon. Then, use the Navigator controllers to “fly over” to the Far Side of the Moon (the side which faces away from the Earth (see Fig. A1).

Observe the Moon’s motion in space for as long as you like. Feel free to change your Observational Mode, to alter your point of view. For example, you can “zoom-in” or “zoom- out”, or go “up” or “down.” You can also change the system pace. Observe and describe what you see. Explain your observations by answering the following questions: 1. Does the Far Side of the Moon remain dark all the time? Will it ever face the Earth?

Fig. A1. “To the far side of the moon” VSS’s task.

470

Gazit, Yair, and Chen 2. Describe the Moon’s relative motion with respect to the Earth. 3. Describe the Moon’s relative motion with respect to the Sun. 4. Observe the illumination changes on the Moon’s surface. Describe these changes and explain what causes them (The Moon phases).

REFERENCES Bar, V. (2000). To learn and to teach astronomy. Eureka—The Journal of Science and Technology 10: 28–33 (in Hebrew). Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Squire, K., Barnett, M., Schmidt, R., Karrigan, K., Yamagata-Lynch, L., and Johnson, C. (2000). Virtual solar system project: Learning through a technologyrich, inquiry-based, participatory learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology 9(1): 7–25. Baxter, J. H. (1989). Children’s understanding of familiar astronomical events. International Journal of Science Education 11: 502–513. Chen, D. (1998). The impact of technology on the relations between children and knowledge. Eureka—The Journal of Science and Technology 6: 8–15 (in Hebrew). Chen, D., and Stroup, W. (1993). General system theory: Toward a conceptual framework for Science and technology for all. Journal of Science Education and Technology 2: 447– 459. Comins, N. F., Gouguenheim, L., McNally, D., and Percy, JR. (1999). Identifying and addressing astronomy misconceptions in the classroom. In L. Gouguenheim, D. McNally, and JR. Percy (Eds.), New Trends in Astronomy Teaching, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 118–123. De Jong, T., and Swaak, J. (2001). Learner vs. system control in using online support for simulation-based discovery learning. Learning Environments Research 4: 217–241. Eshach, H., and Schwartz, J. L. (2002). Understanding children’s comprehension of visual displays of complex information. Journal of Science Education and Technology 11: 333–346. Furness, T. A., Winn, W., and Yu, R. (1997). Global change, VR and learning. In A report for the NSF of workshops, The impact of three dimensional immersive VE on modern pedagogy [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.hitl. washington.edu/publications/r-97-32/ Gazit, E., and Chen, D. (2003). Using the observer to analyze learning in virtual worlds. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 35: 400–407. Gazit, E., Chen, D., and Yair, Y. From an infinite space to a familiar place: Conceptualizing the complexity of space by using a virtual solar system, manuscript in preparation. Granott, N., and Parziale, J. (2002). Microdevelopment Approach, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Keating, T., Barnett, M., Sasha, A. B., and Hay, K. E. (2002). The virtual solar system project: Developing conceptual understanding of astronomical concepts through building threedimensional computational models. Journal of Science Education and Technology 11: 261–275.

Lee, H., Park, S., Kim, H., and Lee, H. (2005). Understanding of astronomical concepts enhanced by an immersive virtual re´ ´ ality system (IVRS). In Mendez-Vilas, A., Gonzalez-Pereira, ´ ´ B., Mesa Gonzalez, J., and Mesa Gonzalez, J. A. (Eds.), Recent Research Developments in Learning Technologies, Formatex, Badajoz, Spain, pp. 1118–1122. Lowe, R. K. (1999). Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education 14: 225–244. Meijer, P. C., Verloop, N., and Beijaard, D. (2002). Multi-method triangulation in a qualitative study on teachers’ practical knowledge: An attempt to increase internal validity. Quality and Quantity 36: 145–167. Monaghan, J. M., and Clement, J. (2000). Algorithms, visualization, and mental models: High school student’s interactions with a relative motion simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology 9: 311–325. Noldus, L. P. J. J., Trienes, R. J. H., Hendriksen, A. H. M., Jansen, H., and Jansen, R. G. (2000). The Observer Video-Pro: New software for the collection, management, and presentation of time-structured data from videotapes and digital media files. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 32: 197–206. Nussbaum, J. (1985). The earth as a cosmic body. In Driver, R. (Ed.), Children’s Ideas in Science, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, pp. 35–57. Palmer, S. E. (1999). Vision Science Photons to Phenomenology, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Parker, J., and Heywood, D. (1998). The Earth and beyond: Developing primary teachers’ understanding of basic astronomical events. International Journal of Science Education 20: 503– 520. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Resnick, M. (2002). Rethinking learning in the digital age. In Kirkman, G. (Ed.), The Global Information Technology Report, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 32–37. Sharp, J. G. (1996). Children’s astronomical beliefs: A preliminary study of year 6 children in southwest England. International Journal of Science Education 18: 685–712. Vosniadou, S., and Brewer, W. F. (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science 18: 123–183. Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., and Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction 11: 381–419. Winn, W. (1993). A Conceptual Basis for Educational Applications of Virtual Reality (HITL Tech. Rep. No. R-93-9), University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Winn, W. (1997). The Impact of Three-Dimensional Immersive Virtual Environments on Modern Pedagogy, (HITL Technical Report R-97-15), University of Washington, Human Interface Technology Laboratory, Seattle, WA. Yair, Y., Mintz, R., and Litvak, S. (2001). 3D-virtual reality in science education: An implication for astronomy teaching. Journal of Science Education and Technology 20: 293–305. Yair, Y., Schur, Y., and Mintz, R. (2003). A “Thinking Journey” to the planets using scientific visualization technologies. Journal of Science Education and Technology 12: 43–49. Youngbult, C. (1998). Educational Uses of Virtual Reality Technology (IDA Document D-2128), Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, VA.