Journal of Elementary Science Education, 12(1) (Spring 2000), pp. 41-52.

2000 Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education and Human Services, Western Illinois University.

Astronomical Misconceptions and the Effectiveness of Science Museums in Promoting Conceptual Change
Shawn Stover Gerry Saunders

Abstract
The present study identified misconceptions concerning the effect of gravity on planetary motion and attempted to foster conceptual change through the hands-on, informal environment of a science museum. Participants were given pre- and posttests to illuminate possible misconceptions and to assess the effectiveness of the informal curriculum. Results indicated that inaccurate conceptions concerning the relationship between mass, gravity, and planetary motion are plentiful. Although some misconceptions remained intact after instruction, most were replaced with more scientifically accurate notions. Mean test scores significantly increased after instruction (p<0.05), and a follow-up survey demonstrated that the conceptual change was stable.

Introduction
In addition to the formal learning taking place in traditional school classrooms, there is another area of learning to consider when examining the potential of science education. Informal learning takes place outside of schools in places like museums, zoos, parks, and even through the mass media. There is evidence suggesting that informal learning can be very enriching and influential in student education (Lucas, McManus, & Thomas, 1986). Learning and understanding concepts are functions of how new knowledge fits in with preexisting knowledge and beliefs. Misconceptions often arise when students alter new information to fit their preconceived ideas about a particular subject (Ormrod, 1995). According to Hammer (1996), misconceptions can be defined by four properties: (1) they are strongly held, stable cognitive structures; (2) they differ from expert conceptions; (3) they fundamentally affect how students understand natural phenomena and scientific explanations; and (4) they must be overcome, avoided, or eliminated in order for students to achieve expert understanding. Conceptual change teaching recognizes that students enter classrooms and other learning environments already having developed their own explanations of natural phenomena. While these explanations may be incompatible with accepted scientific theories, they can be difficult to change because they are so strongly rooted in the students prior knowledge base (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982). Indeed, Journal of Elementary Science Education Spring 2000 12(1) 41

students have some knowledge of the physical world, and that knowledge seems reasonable and useful to them (Hammer, 1996). While these naive conceptions may not be applicable to new contexts, students will use them in an attempt to understand what they see and hear (Tytler, 1998). To promote conceptual change, misconceptions about particular topics should be identified prior to instruction. Misconceptions cannot be properly addressed if the instructor does not know what they are (Kyle & Shymansky, 1989). To identify misconceptions, a classroom discussion might begin with informal questioning or a pretest to get a read on student understanding of the topic at hand. According to Ormrod (1995), experienced teachers may eventually be able to anticipate student misconceptions about particular topics and deal with them without initial questioning. Addressing misconceptions might involve linking conflicting perspectives historically to demonstrate an evolution of ideas and to provide students with a likely origin for their own conceptions (Jimenez, 1992). Furthermore, students are most likely to revise their way of thinking if overwhelming evidence is provided in support of alternative ideas (Posner et al., 1982). Finally, students must want to learn. If students are interested in the subject, they are much more likely to engage in meaningful learning (Lee & Anderson, 1993). A wide range of studies have addressed student preconceptions in various areas of science (Bodner, 1986: Helm, 1980; Novak, 1977). Furthermore, several studies have attempted to identify misconceptions about astronomy (Baxter, 1991; Lightman & Sadler, 1993; Treagust & Smith, 1989), and of all the potential misunderstandings, it seems that those involving the concepts of gravity and planetary motion are the most common. In other areas of science, the use of laboratory activities and problem-solving sessions seems to help students recognize the inadequacy of their inappropriate preconceptions, while providing support for more accurate views of science (Bishop & Anderson, 1990). By coupling this type of strategy with the learner-centered approach of an informal learning venue, common misconceptions concerning the fundamental force of gravity and the basic laws of planetary motion could be readily identified and confronted, and conceptual change toward a better understanding of astronomical phenomena might be promoted. The present study addressed three questions: (1) How do students interpret the concept of gravity and its effect on planetary motion? (2) How can misconceptions about the laws of gravity and celestial motion be replaced with scientifically accurate interpretations? and (3) To what extent are structured enrichment programs offered at informal education settings, specifically science museums, effective in promoting deeper understanding of scientific concepts such as gravity and planetary motion?

Methods
The study involved 14 4th through 6th grade students participating in a summer astronomy camp at the Discovery Center Science Museum in Fort Collins, Colorado. The student population consisted of ten males and four females from various schools along Colorados Front Range, plus one visitor from California. The group was diverse in both ethnicity (14% Hispanic; 7% African-American) and socioeconomic status. While parental occupations ranged from artist to farmer to engineer, all parents indicated on a demographic survey that their children were regularly exposed to informal sources of science, nature, and technology (zoos, museums, 42 Journal of Elementary Science Education Spring 2000 12(1)

etc.). Furthermore, all participating students indicated that math and science were among their favorite subjects in school. Students preregistered for the class, which met three hours a day for five consecutive days. Prior to any instruction, participants completed a questionnaire, similar to one utilized by Lightman and Sadler (1993), to assess student conceptions of, among other things, the relationship between mass and gravitational pull, the difference between rotation and revolution, and the cause of seasonal temperature fluctuations on Earth (see Figure 1). The instrument consisted of eight two-tiered questions with multiple-choice responses. Instruction involved extensive use of the Discovery Centers StarLab planetarium, as well as slide shows and demonstrations designed to simultaneously entertain and inform students. Furthermore, hands-on activities were provided to stimulate interest and enthusiasm. Specific topics, including the solar system, the birth and death of stars, planetary motion, the speed of light, and galaxies, were introduced by the instructor, but for the most part, discussions were learner-led. Common misconceptions identified by the pre-course questionnaire were discussed and challenged with simple, understandable evidence supporting scientifically accepted views. Concepts related to the force of gravity were demonstrated with hands-on activities utilizing a rubber sheet to represent the fabric of space and spherical objects to represent various celestial bodies. Demonstrations of planetary motions, both revolutions and rotations, involved the hands-on use of Styrofoam planets and moons, as well as a stationary light bulb to represent the sun. At the end of the five-day course, a version of the gravity questionnaire was administered again. Student responses were analyzed to determine whether previous misconceptions had been replaced by legitimate scientific notions concerning gravity and its effect on planetary motion. Six weeks later, a similar questionnaire was mailed to the participating students to assess stability of conceptual change. Differences between pre- and posttest scores, and between posttest and follow-up scores, were analyzed using paired t-tests.

Results
Results from the pretest indicated several possible misconceptions (see Table 1). Two misconceptions, in particular, appear to be quite widespread, as 50% of the students subscribed to them. One suggests that the tilt of the Earth changes from season to season and is responsible for warmer temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere during the summer months, while the other implies that the force of gravity is generated by magnetic fields and is not mass-dependent. Student responses on the posttest, however, indicated that most of the inaccurate preconceptions had been modified by the end of the course (see Tables 1 and 2). As Table 3 illustrates, students obtained a mean score of 4.00 (out of a possible 8.00) on the initial pretest and a mean score of 5.86 on the posttest at the end of the course. Statistical analysis indicated that the increase of 1.86 was significant (p<0.05); however, when the mean score from the follow-up survey administered six weeks after completion of the course (5.75) was compared to the mean posttest score from the same students (6.13), no significant difference was found (see Table 4).

Journal of Elementary Science Education Spring 2000 12(1)

43

Discussion
Based on the response to weekend planetarium shows held throughout the school year, the concepts assessed in the present study were appropriate for motivated, museum-going students; however, Table 1 suggests that several misconceptions may be affecting student understanding of gravity and planetary motion. In particular, the relationship between mass and gravity and the effect that relationship has on planetary motion seem to be poorly understood. While elementary and secondary students appear to be rather interested in astronomical phenomena and are familiar with the names of various cosmic structures, they are far less knowledgeable about the basic mechanisms of gravitational fields and celestial motions (Treagust & Smith, 1989). According to Treagust and Smith, there are several basic facts that must be part of a students conceptual knowledge before a realistic understanding of planetary motion is possible: (1) gravity can be defined as the force of attraction between bodies; (2) the force of gravity controls the motion of all planets and satellites in the solar system; (3) bodies with larger masses have larger gravitational fields; and (4) gravitational pulls are weaker when bodies are farther apart. Student understanding of the revolutions and rotations involved in planetary motion appears to be lacking due to a poor comprehension of the basic tenets of gravity. Misconceptions about this fundamental aspect of astronomy need to be addressed and revised before any general astronomical concept can be understood at a meaningful level (Gunstone & White, 1981). To address the misconception concerning the nature of gravity, the classic demonstration utilizing a rubber sheet and a bowling ball was employed. As indicated by Tables 1 and 2, this hands-on activity seems to be very effective at illustrating the relationship between massive objects and the fabric of space; however, although an attempt was made to illustrate seasonal conditions using Styrofoam planets and 60-watt suns, and the students seemed to understand the concept while participating in the demonstration, the misconception concerning the tilt of the earth remained prevalent even after the course. Younger students may be quite capable of concrete thinking, but may be unable to transfer their understanding to abstract concepts. Understanding abstract scientific concepts may be linked to the acquisition of reasoning skills, which may be a byproduct of brain maturation (Lawson, 1993). Moreover, it may be that students are far more familiar with the notion of seasonal changes than they are with the concept of gravitational attraction. They encounter changes in the seasons on a regular basis and have probably given a lot more thought to the reasons for the seasons than they have to the somewhat abstract idea of gravity. Routinely grappling with an idea may allow misconceptions to become firmly implanted and difficult to change. Along the same lines, Zeilik, Schau, and Mattern (1998) found that, in university students, misconceptions concerning the nature of visible light were also very resistant to change, even after intense instruction. The authors recognize that the small sample size of the present study makes it difficult to extrapolate the results to a general student population. We can only suggest trends that apply to self-motivated students in nontraditional settings. The informal environment of the summer astronomy camp may have contributed to the significant increase in the mean score on the posttest, and to the relative stability of the conceptual change demonstrated by the follow-up questionnaire (see Tables 3 and 4). Students were engaged in entertaining activities and were involved in deciding the content and direction of the course. All participants indicated that the 44 Journal of Elementary Science Education Spring 2000 12(1)

experience was a positive one. It should also be noted that Sneider & Ohadi (1998) found that younger students (4th-5th grade) had an easier time of unraveling their misconceptions concerning the earths shape and gravity than older students (7th8th grade). They speculated that younger students might respond better to instruction because their conceptions of the world are not as deeply rooted as those of the older students. This speculation might also be applicable to the present study and may be a factor in the overall posttest improvement. Informal learning, that which occurs outside the traditional school classroom, is characterized as being learner-centered, open-ended, less structured than formal learning, noncompulsory, and without assessment (Wellington, 1990). Furthermore, the social aspect of learning in museums, zoos, and other informal learning centers is at the very core of the learning experience (McManus, 1988). The fact that children may be playing and are being entertained in these environments should be viewed as a complement, not a detriment, to the educational experience (Wellington, 1990). According to Wellington (1990), informal learning settings, such as hands-on science centers, serve to educate students by making affective, as well as cognitive, contributions. The cognitive contribution involves promotion of a better understanding of facts, principles, and theories, whereas the affective, or emotional, contribution involves the development of enthusiasm, motivation, and eagerness to learn. An enthusiastic interest may ultimately lead some students to pursue a deeper understanding of science and technology.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank Diane White, executive director of the Discovery Center, for the use of museum space and equipment. Funding for the StarLab program was provided by a grant from the New York Hall of Science in collaboration with the National Science Foundation. Additional support was provided by Hewlett-Packard and the Gannett Foundation. The authors also thank Kelly Suter, Brad Tripp, and Dee Wanger for conceptual contributions.

Journal of Elementary Science Education Spring 2000 12(1)

45

References
Baxter, J. (1991). A constructivist approach to astronomy in the national curriculum. Physics Education, 26, 38-45. Bishop, B., & Anderson, C. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution . Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 415-427. Bodner, G. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge . Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 873-878. Gunstone, R., & White, R. (1981). Understanding of gravity . Science Education, 65, 291-299. Hammer, D. (1996). More than misconceptions: Multiple perspectives on student knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research. American Journal of Physics, 64, 1316-1325. Helm, H. (1980). Misconceptions in physics among South African students. Physics Education, 15, 92-105. Kyle, W., & Shymansky, J. (1989). Enhancing learning through conceptual change teaching. NARST News, 31, 7-8. Jimenez, M. (1992). Thinking about theories or thinking with theories: A classroom study with natural selection. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 51-61. Lawson, A. (1993). Deductive reasoning, brain maturation, and scientific concept acquisition: Are they linked? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1029-1051. Lee, O., & Anderson, C. (1993). Task engagement and conceptual change in middle school science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 585-610. Lightman, A., & Sadler, P. (1993). Teacher predictions versus actual student gains. Physics Teacher, 31, 162-167. Lucas, A., McManus, P., & Thomas, G. (1986). Investigating learning from informal sources: Listening to conversations and observing play in science museums. European Journal of Science Education, 8, 341-352. McManus, P. (1988). Good companions: More on the social determination of learning related behavior in a science museum. International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, 6, 263-270. Novak, J. (1977). A theory of education. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Ormrod, J. (1995). Human learning (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/PrenticeHall. Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227. Sneider, C., & Ohadi, M. (1998). Unraveling students misconceptions about the Earths shape and gravity. Science Education, 82, 265-284. Treagust, D., & Smith, C. (1989). Secondary students understanding of gravity and the motion of planets. School Science and Mathematics, 89, 380-391. Tytler, R. (1998). The nature of students informal science conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 901-927. Wellington, J. (1990). Formal and informal learning in science: The role of the interactive science centres. Physics Education, 25, 247-252. Zeilik, M., Schau, C., & Mattern, N. (1998). Misconceptions and their change in university-level astronomy courses. The Physics Teacher, 36, 104-107.

46

Journal of Elementary Science Education Spring 2000 12(1)

Figure 1. Pretest Questionnaire on Gravity and Planetary Motion

Place the letter of the correct answer in the blank following the question. 1. What causes night and day? ____ A. The Earth rotates on its axis. B. The Earth revolves around the sun. C. The sun revolves around the Earth. Reason? ____ A. The Earth receives more light when it is closest to the sun and less light when it is farther away. B. As the Earth rotates, only half the planet is exposed to sunlight at any given time. C. As the sun moves around the Earth, it provides only enough light for half the planet at any given time. 2. Which of the following would make you weigh half as much as you do now? ___ A. Double the distance between the Earth and the sun. B. Take away half of the Earths mass. C. Decrease the Earths rate of rotation so that one day equal 48 hours. Reason? ____ A. The mass of an object is related to the gravity it generates. Reducing the mass of the Earth would decrease its gravitational pull, making you weigh less. B. Planets farther from the sun generate less gravity. C. Removing half the earths mass would increase its rate of rotation, which would increase the strength of its gravitational attraction. 3. Why does it get warmer during the summer months here in Colorado? ____ A. We get closer to the sun. B. It has to do with the angle at which the Earth is tilted. C. The Earth rotates faster during the summer. Reason? ____ A. During the summer months, the Earths orbital position is much closer to the sun. B. The tilt of the Earth changes from season to season. C. Due to the Earths natural tilt, the amount of sunlight reaching the northern hemisphere changes throughout the year.

Journal of Elementary Science Education Spring 2000 12(1)

47

4. Which object has the strongest gravitational pull? ____ A. The sun B. A black hole C. Jupiter Reason? ____ A. The larger an object is, the more gravity it generates. B. The mass of an object is related to the gravity it generates. More mass results in a greater gravitational pull. C. The sun is at the center of the universe. 5. Why does the moon have different phases? ____ A. It reflects light differently as it revolves around the Earth. B. It passes through the Earths shadow. C. It is sometimes hidden by clouds. Reason? ____ A. The crescent and half-moon patterns are created only when thick clouds are present. B. As the sun revolves around the Earth, its light is reflected by the moon at different angles, creating the phases we see from Earth. C. As the moon revolves around the Earth, sunlight is reflected at different angles, creating the phases we see from Earth. 6. How long does it take the moon to revolve around the sun one time? ____ A. One week B. One month C. One year Reason? ____ A. Since the moon is so close to the sun, it only takes a week to make a complete revolution. B. Since the moon is revolving around the Earth, it takes the moon one year to make a complete trip around the sun. C. The phase cycle of the moon (from new moon to full moon) represents one full revolution around the sun. It takes the moon about one year to complete the revolution. 7. How is gravity generated? ____ A. By magnetic fields B. By electric currents C. By changing the shape of space Reason? ____ A. Massive objects, like stars and planets, actually change the shape of space, creating gravitational attraction. B. The rotations and revolutions of the planets generate powerful magnetic fields, creating gravitational attraction. C. Extreme temperatures generated by some stars, like our sun, can change the shape of space, creating gravitational attraction.

48

Journal of Elementary Science Education Spring 2000 12(1)

8. If a new planet was discovered between Earth and Mars, how long do you think it would take the new planet to revolve around the sun? ____ A. 365 days B. 287 days C. 526 days Reason? ____ A. Since the new planet is pretty close to the Earth, and it takes us 365 days to revolve around the sun, it should take the new planet the same amount of time. B. Since Mars is farther from the sun, its orbital period is greater than that of Earth. If the new planet is between Earth and Mars, it must take more than 365 days to revolve around the sun. C. Since Mars is closer to the sun, its orbital period is less than that of Earth. If the new planet is between Earth and Mars, it must take less than 365 days to revolve around the sun. Table 1 Possible Misconceptions Concerning Gravity and Planetary Motion % Students with Misconception Misconception The Earths revolution around the sun causes night and day. The weight of an object is related to the Earths rate of rotation. The tilt of the Earth changes from season to season. The size of an object dictates the amount of gravity it can generate. The sun revolves around the Earth. The phase cycle of the moon represents one full revolution around the sun. Gravity is generated by magnetic fields. There is no relationship between a planets distance from the sun and the amount of time it takes that planet to revolve around the sun. Pretest 28.5 14.3 50.0 21.4 35.7 35.7 50.0 Posttest 14.3 0.00 50.0 0.00 14.3 21.4 14.3

14.3

14.3

Journal of Elementary Science Education Spring 2000 12(1)

49

Table 2 Frequency of Responses to Questionnaire Items Pretest Item 1 1st , 2nd tier A, B* B, B** other B, A C, A other B, C B, B other B, B A, A other A, C A, B other C, B C, C other C, A A, B other C, B A, A other Frequency 9 4 1 9 2 3 4 7 3 10 3 1 6 5 3 8 5 1 3 7 4 7 2 5 1st , 2nd tier A, B B, B other B, A C, A other B, C B, B other B, B A, A other A, C A, B other C, B C, C other C, A A, B other C, B A, A other Posttest Frequency 12 2 0 13 0 1 6 7 1 13 0 1 10 2 2 9 3 2 9 2 3 1 1 2 1

*For each item, the first combination represents correct responses for both tiers. **The second combination represents the most common incorrect two-tiered response.

50

Journal of Elementary Science Education Spring 2000 12(1)

Table 3 Changes in Student Conceptions Mean* Pretest (first day of class; n=14) Posttest (last day of class; n=14) 4.00 5.86 t value Pretest vs. Posttest -4.94 SD 1.75 1.5 1 p value .0003

*Average number of correct two-tiered responses; maximum possible score is 8.00 Table 4 Stability of Conceptual Change Mean* Pretest result for follow-up participants (first day of class; n=8) Posttest result for follow-up participants (last day of class; n=8) 4.25 6.13 SD 2.25 1.39 1.55

Follow-up (six weeks after class; n=8) 5.75

t value Posttest vs. follow-up 1.42

p value 0.197

*Average number of correct two-tiered responses; maximum possible score is 8.00

Journal of Elementary Science Education Spring 2000 12(1)

51