Summary
This chapter outlines the important parts of this research in the bigger field of astronomy, astronomy education, and astronomy education research. It provides a brief overview of the extensive astronomy education research literature that has been produced over the years and the apparent gap which this current research study explores.
2.1 Introduction
Knowledge development is a process involving a continuous cycle of modification, refinement, and improvement according to the needs of the system at that time. My work is guided by the previous studies in astronomy education research (AER), as the refining of knowledge is not an isolated process. This section covers the relevant existing research studies carried out in AER.
Firstly, an overview of astronomy education, which offers the history and context of AER, is covered. Then, the findings from research studies which investigated student conceptual understanding of astronomical concepts and that underpin our reasons for continued probing student knowledge are presented. A brief section on other research within AER is provided together with a brief review of the research methodologies that have been employed in the field.
The chapter concludes by providing the background of the introductory astronomy questionnaire.
2.2 Overview of Astronomy Education Research 2.2.1 Big ideas in Astronomy
Earlier research studies in AER focused on testing student knowledge on the following topics: (i) Earth-Moon-System; (ii) Earth-Shape and gravity; (iii) The Solar-System and (iv) stars and galaxies;
which made up the majority of the AER literature. This information was covered in a resource letter of ‘Astronomy Education Research’ (AER) which categorized the research done in the field up to that point (Bailey & Slater, 2005). These major topics were at the forefront of probing student understanding about astronomical phenomena. Out of all the issues raised that explicitly exist within the literature, astronomical scales (size and distance) were not explicitly researched (see Bailey & Slater, 2005). In 2010, Lelliott and Rollnick stated that astronomical scales, especially sizes and distances are two of the big ideas in astronomy, as important as the idea of gravity (Which some AER literature has looked at, Sneider, 1989; Treagust, 1989; Agan & Sneider, 2003; Sharp & Sharp, 2007; Lelliott, 2013; Plummer & Krajcik, 2010;Williamson et al., 2016).
Following the resource paper and the review by Bailey & Slater (2005), the aforementioned topics were grouped as big ideas in astronomy by Lelliott & Rollnick (2010). In their work, (Lelliott &
Rollnick, 2010) provided an overview of astronomy education research done over 35 years, in which the notion of big ideas was structured. Big ideas are defined as “topics of importance for literacy in STEM” by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Project 2061. This is a popular notion in the science education field, which also feeds into the idea of Topic Specific Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TSPCK) (Loughran et al., 2004; Mavhunga &
Rollnick, 2013). Lelliott & Rollnick (2010) focused on the 8 big ideas which they identified in studies that had been carried out over 35 years. The following topics were identified as the fundamental big ideas in astronomy: (i) the Solar system, (ii) gravity, (iii) stars, and (iv) the concepts of size and distance. The next four big ideas were topics that were commonly taught in the school curricula, (i) the Earth-Moon-Sun system, (ii) Earth shape, (iii) day/night cycle, and (iv)
the seasons. These big ideas from Lelliott & Rollnick, have been classified using the “Big Ideas”
framework, and, they are different from the main topics Bailey and Slater reported on. Lelliott &
Rollnick (2010) did not however investigate studies which cover other fundamental ideas in astronomy, such as cosmology, modern astrophysics of Exoplanets, dark matter, dark energy, light, galaxies etc. These are all important concepts that are to be understood in astronomy.
2.2.2 Summary of Methods used commonly used in AER
Table II. Is a brief summary of the research methods used in Astronomy Education Research studies that include astronomical scales and sizes. The studies covered are from Primary schooling, Secondary Schooling and Undergraduate University.
Research Methods Studies Type of research instruments used
Quantitative
Zeilik et al, (1998);
Sadler (1998);
Bisard et al., (1994);
Finegold & Pundak, (1990);
DeLaughter et al, (1998);
Trumper (2000, 2001a, 2001b) Miller & Brewer (2009)
Diagnostic tests, Surveys,
Multiple Choice Questionnaires
Qualitative
Sharp, (1996);
Taylor et al, (2003);
Plummer et al., (2006);
Sherrod & Wilhelm (2009);
Wilhelm, (2009);
Venville et al., (2012);
Plummer et al., (2011);
Plummer et al., (2014);
Ka Chun Yu (2017);
Taylor & Grundstrom (2011).
Sivitilli et al.,2021/2022
Interviews
Written Response Questionnaires Video Recordings
(Most of these are also intervention studies)
Mixed method
Slater et al., (2016) Agan (2004) Bailey (2009) Makwela (2017) Plummer et al., (2014)
Surveys with follow-up interviews MCQ with long written responses Concept Maps (counting ideas and then analysing progression).
Research studies in AER have used different research methods, qualitative, quantitative, and a combination of quantitative and qualitative (referred to as mixed methods). Table II provides a brief summary of the different research methods that have been employed in AER, especially the studies that include astronomical scales to some extent. The quantitative studies that have been carried out usually included diagnostic tests, surveys, and multiple-choice questionnaires. These studies investigated student ideas across many different topics in astronomy, especially topics such as flat earth, that included gravity, seasons, eclipses, day & night (Zeilik et al, 1998; Sadler 1998; Schoon, 1992; Bisard et al., 1994; Finegold & Pundak, 1990; DeLaughter et al, 1998;
Trumper, 2001a & Trumper, 2001b). Most of the studies prior to 2003, were mainly quantitative, and used diagnostic tests, surveys, and multiple-choice types of questionnaires which collected big samples of data.
Qualitative research is designed to explore underlying causal mechanisms occurring and investigates the process of sense-making of the participants' experiences, these are interpreted without the widespread use of traditional statistical analysis (Slater et al., 2016). Examples of such studies have investigated student ideas through interviews, written questionnaires, and video recording (Taylor et al., 2003; Plummer et al., 2006; Sherrod & Wilhelm, 2009; Wilhelm, 2009; Plummer et al., 2011; Wallace et al., 2011; Wallace et al., 2012a; Wallace et al., 2012b;
Venville et al., 2012; Plummer et al., 2014). The findings of qualitative research studies bring out rich data that can be analysed in multiple ways to provide extensive evidence on students’/
teachers’ notions pertaining to different aspects of astronomy. In most cases, a triangulation analysis is employed in strengthening the rigour of the findings, addressing the issues of trustworthiness and reliability of the studies. Triangulation means carrying out different analysis methods such as theoretical or conceptual frameworks to the same data, in order to confirm and strengthen the findings of a study.
Concept inventories are an example of diagnostic tests and MCQs that have been developed through qualitative studies. As such, they are commonly useful for diagnostic tests and identifying student challenges, here is a list of the existing astronomy concept inventories: Lunar Phases Concept Inventory (Lindell, 2001; Lindell & Olsen, 2002); Astronomy Diagnostic Test (Hufnagel, 2002); Light and Spectroscopy Concept Inventory (Bardar et al., 2007); Star Properties Concept Inventory (Bailey et al., 2009); Astronomy and Space Science Concept Inventory (T. F.
Slater and S. J. Slater, 2008); Cosmology Surveys (Wallace et al., 2011); Astronomy Concept Inventory (Bilici et al., 2011); Test of Astronomy Standards (Slater, 2014); Size, Scale and Structure (Gingrich et al. 2015); Astronomy and Science Student Attitudes (ASSA) (Bartlett et al., 2018);
Planet Formation Concept Inventory (Simon et al. 2019); and Moon Phases Concept Inventory (Chastenay and Riopel, 2020).
Slater showed that the combination of both quantitative and qualitative methods/measures were able to identify students’ persisting alternate conceptions after instruction (Slater, 1993).
These types of studies are referred to as a mixed method approach, where both qualitative and quantitative methods are used to triangulate evidence-based conclusions from multiple sources of data which can then be interpreted with different philosophical perspectives and viewpoints (Slater et al., 2016).
2.3 Unpacking problem areas student thinking
Wall (1973) argued that it was not necessary for research to be carried out focusing on student understanding and conceptions of different phenomena in astronomy. Rather, he suggested that it was important to measure the effect and impact of the teaching materials used in teaching these concepts as this may provide insight. However, I disagree with Wall's conclusion as student conceptions are important for our understanding as researchers and practitioners so that we can be able to provide, suggest and develop the teaching material, practicals, and interventions needed to cater to student needs. On the contrary, Adams & Slater (2000) discuss the presence of astronomy topics in the American National School Education Standards and give a short review of related research results. They argue that due to the emphasis on conceptual understanding and teacher education in the standards, it is important to carry out future research on student understanding, which requires the development of research-based, and concept-specific assessment tools (Adams & Slater, 2000). Thus, several studies (Sadler, 1998; Sharp, 1996; Lindell, 2001; Hufnagel, 2002; Plummer, 2000; Trumper, 2001; Agan, 2004; Lindell, 2004; Bardar et al., 2006; Sadler et al., 2009; Bailey, 2008; Plummer et al., 2006; Plummer, 2008; Plummer, 2010a;
Cheon et al., 2013; Plummer et al., 2011; Taylor et al., 2011; Plummer et al., 2014; Bailey et al., 2012; Gingrich et al., 2015; Simon et al., 2019, Chastenay & Riopel, 2020) were carried out, which probed student knowledge, understanding, and conceptions in astronomy.
The following insights coming from the (mentioned) studies show the need to continue refining how ideas are probed as well as the teaching of these ideas. For example, Plummer et al. (2011), carried a study where they investigated elementary students’ explanations of the patterns of the daily motion (apparent) of the Sun. Pre- and post- interviews were used to collect data and were analysed in their study, one of the key findings showed that about half of the student sample operated from their naive mental models that are based on their experiences and prior non- scientific knowledge. These naive models are generally not in line with the scientific explanations and concepts knowledge, required to fully explain the apparent motion of the Sun. This further provides motivation for teachers to be more aware of student naive mental models and include them in teaching and the framework of science, in order for students to recognize their incorrect notions as well as what is incorrect about their notions (framework theory by Vosniadou &
Skompetili, 2014 and p-prims by diSessa, 1993). This key finding (Plummer et al., 2011) is a similar finding to that by Sharp (2006), where the results of the interviews carried out with the students’, showed that they had a poor knowledge base which was reflected in their intuitive and
transitional nature of the mental models they used and expressed when answering questions regarding the solar system. Furthermore, it is argued that although students may use the correct terminology in explaining astronomical concepts, which implies that they have acquired a complete conceptual understanding of concept, when they are probed further through other research methods, it shows that the latter is not the case (Bailey & Slater, 2003). Hence, students hold these deeply rooted alternative concepts of science, especially in astronomy, even after instruction, and build on this knowledge with the newly learned content (Bailey & Slater 2003;
Vosniadou & Skompetili, 2014; Makwela, 2017).
Additionally, in a similar study (with the planetarium) with another group of students, Plummer et al., (2014) carried out a study, in which they looked at student learning progression over time, when teaching about the universe from an Earth-based perspective and space-based perspective.
Plummer interviewed students before and after instruction in the planetarium, where student ideas were noted. The main findings showed that although the intervention was aimed at enabling students to gain adequate sophisticated scientifically correct explanations, many of the students were unable to fully develop accurate explanations for daily celestial motion after a
“good” instruction (Plummer et al., 2014). Studies by Ka Chun Yu (2017) have explored the role of planetariums in studying astronomical phenomena, using it as an intervention instruction to help students understand concepts better. In these studies, improvements in student understanding were recorded on those that had visited the planetarium unlike those who saw visuals on a flat plane, like a board/ whiteboard. Further research studies are currently being carried out at UCT (Sivitilli et al., 2021) to address the impact of improved planetarium technologies in the teaching and learning of astronomy content.
2.4 Spatial thinking
In an attempt to improve student knowledge, spatial awareness that has been mostly employed, is the use of planetariums and many other ways of visualizing astronomy phenomena.
More recent studies have focused on other aspects of astronomy education such as visualization which have explored the importance of 2D and 3D images in astronomy and their role therein (Eriksson, 2019; Wilhem et al., 2018). The aspects of visualization also touch on the issues of spatial ability especially in terms of moving between 2D and 3D images. People generally do not see the same thing when looking at images, especially 3D, thus Eriksson (2019) suggests a way in which professional astronomers and astronomy teachers can teach the extrapolation of 3D images to students. Disciplinary discernment is the term that Eriksson uses to describe this process, where one starts first by noticing something, then reflects on it, and constructs new meaning from a specific discipline perspective (Eriksson, 2014). Eriksson introduces the framework of social semiotics in astronomy, where social semiotics asserts that any form of
communication within a specific discipline is known through the use of a semiotic resource or system (Airey & Linder, 2017). A semiotic resource/ system refers to a method of communication, such as formulas, graphs and equations that are used in a specific discipline.
The most recent review study in AER by Cole et al. (2018) focused on the idea of spatial thinking which is defined as "the perceptual and cognitive processes that enable humans to create and manipulate mental representations of the spatial properties that exist within and between physical or imagined objects, structures, and systems" (Cole et al., 2018, p.1). The ability to understand these external representations such as maps, diagrams, equations, graphs, as well as solving problems or making inferences about spatial properties (internal) also makes up spatial thinking (Cole et el., 2018). Cognitive science refers to spatial cognition when discussing issues related to spatial thinking (2018). Spatial cognition is defined as “the knowledge and internal or cognitive representation of the structure, entities, and relations of space; in other words, the internalized reflection and reconstruction of space in thought” (Hart and Moore, 1973, p. 248).
This review (Cole et al., 2018), looked at spatial thinking within the studies carried out in AER by looking at the research frameworks that are traditionally used to characterize and measure spatial thinking in astronomy. These frameworks include the work of the psychologist Piaget, whose work on children's cognitive development shed light on their spatial awareness, with emphasis on the children's sensory-motor experiences. The next framework was the psychometric approach which focused on describing and identifying factors of spatial abilities.
This approach contributed to the understanding of spatial thinking by differentiating spatial abilities from other cognitive processes in astronomy and other related scientific fields. A cognitive approach put emphasis on identifying the mental processes used in decoding spatial skills. The cognitive approach framework, especially that offered by embodied cognition is the one which we use to further analyze and interpret results in our studies (see chapter 4).
Cole et al., (2018) have also shown that spatial skills have been probed in a variety of ways summarized as non-interventional, interventional, and learning progression studies. These studies used different research approaches and within each approach, improvement was perceived (see Cole et al., 2018). These studies cannot be directly compared with one another, thus only inferences are made from the findings. In our attempt to look at this notion of spatial ability in astronomy, we specifically look at the big idea of size and distance.
With regard to student understanding, studies have shown that students hold on to their alternate conceptions even after instruction, e.g., Sadler (1998) who concluded that students prefer these alternate ideas that fit their current worldview over scientifically correct notions.
Other authors (Nussbaum & Novak, 1976; Sharp, 1996, Marsh et al., 1999; Lindell, 2001; Fanetti, 2001; Sharp, 2006) have expressed that student ideas change with age; for instance, younger
children may have extremely limited ideas which increase to be more scientifically correct as they grow older (and are exposed to more content knowledge).
Additionally, huge efforts have been made in Astronomy Education Research to improve student knowledge and understanding of astronomical phenomena (McKinnon et al., 2002; Prather et al., 2004; Waller & Slater, 2011; Plummer, 2008; Prather et al., 2009; Rudolph et al., 2010; Plummer et al., 2011; Coble et al., 2013; Slater & Tatge, 2017). In the study by Rudolph et al., (2019) which used the Light and Spectroscopy Concept Inventory to determine students learning, showed that there was an increase in student learning with the increase of interactive teaching and learning strategies employed. Bailey & Slater (2005) further mention that these learning gains seen in these studies are influenced by several aspects, such as the teachers content and classroom interactions. Prather et al., (2009) suggests that one of the ways of improving learners knowledge, is to improve teachers and instructors professional development, which is key to closing the gaps in knowledge.
2.5 Student Knowledge on Stars
The topic of stars has also been identified as a big idea in astronomy by Lelliott & Rollnick (2010).
However, studies that have investigated this big idea show that students’ and teachers’
knowledge is limited (See Makwela, 2017).
In a larger study on astronomy topics included within the National Science Curriculum of the U.K (United Kingdom), Sharp (1996) investigated 42 10–11-year-olds understanding of the Sun and the stars. Since these were young children, the issue of the shape of the star was noted. A majority indicated that the Sun and the stars have a “round” shape, however, it is noted that it was not clear if “round” meant “spherical”. The results showed that 57% of the students had identified the Sun as a star, although they were not clear on what a star is, besides stating that
“a star is like the Sun” (Sharp, 1996, p.697). This is a similar finding in a short study that Bletcher (In a private conversation) discussed, where astronomy undergraduates were unable to make proper distinctions between the stars and the Sun. More so, these undergraduates defined the Sun as a burning ball of gas, which was similar to the students in Sharp, who described the Sun as "a big ball of fire, gases, flames, and heat" (Sharp, 1996). Regarding the size of the stars in comparison to the Sun, Earth, and the moon, the students (10 -11-year-olds) had varying responses, which shows that this is also a problematic area in student understanding.
Agan (2004) conducted a study that explored students’ understanding of stars, using semi- structured interviews to investigate student ideas. The population sample for the study included earth science high school students (ES), first year undergraduate students (UN), and junior high school students taking an astronomy module (AS). Since junior high school students had exposure to astronomy content, they had more scientifically accurate knowledge about stars. They were