Do Science Demonstrations in the Planetarium Enhance Learning?

Do Science Demonstrations in the Planetarium Enhance Learning?

James Rusk, Russell Planetarium

2501 Memorial Mesquite, Texas 75149 USA

Published in Planetarian, Vol. 32, No. 1, March 2003. Pages 5-8

Abstract:Sciencedemonstrationscanmakeaplanetarium programmore effective. In a test involving about 1,900 fifth graders, the students who saw both the planetarium program and the science demonstration scored over 19% better than the control group. Furthermore, students from low socio-economic backgrounds benefited more from the science demonstration than other students.

Russell Planetarium is a school planetarium located in the Dallas, Texas suburb of Mesquite. The district served has a school populationofnearly34,000students (50%white, 26% Hispanic, 20% African-American, 4% Other). Thirty-eight percent of the elementary schools in the district are Title 1 schools. Title 1 is a federal program for schools that have 40% or more students receiving free or reduced-price lunches.

For many years, the planetarium staff has been supplementing the programs with live science demonstrations. The staff presents “gee-wiz” programs as well as hands-on activities. Our common assumption is that besides teaching students that science is fun and interesting, the extra effort reinforces what students learn in the planetarium program as well as concepts they learn in science class. However, until recently the value of science demonstrations in the planetarium has never been tested.

The planetarium is the ideal place in the public school system to present science demonstrations. Many experiments, such as spectra activities, require good lighting control, and some classrooms are almost impossible to make truly dark. A demonstration of lunar phases requires not only a dark room, but also a strong light source. Other demonstrations, such as laser light experiments, require expensive equipment that a classroom teacher cannot afford.

Finally, since elementary teachers are required to have background knowledge in so many areas, many feel that their science training is inadequate. Many teachers are fearful of doing sciencedemonstrationsbecause “something might go wrong.”

An ideal candidate to help judge the effect of hands-on demonstrations is the program Moonwitch, which was written by Phil Groce and produced by Bowen Productions (Note: No longer available.) In the Mesquite school district, “Moonwitch” is shown to all 5th graders, since one of the required Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) deals with anunderstanding ofthelunar cycle.

“Moonwich” tells the story of Diana and her brother Billy who go trick-or-treating one Halloween night. They notice that the moon seems extra large when it rises (the moon illusion), and have questions about why the moon changes shape from night to night. Theprogramdoes agood job explaining lunar phases, the moon illusion, and other facts about the moon.

Methodology

Each set of two classes of 5th grade studentssaw the planetarium program together.Then a randomly selected class moved toanother room and took a brief quiz aboutthe moon and moon phases. The class thatstayed under the dome used moonballs onsticks to discover exactly why the moongoes through phases and how lunar and solareclipses occur.

At the conclusion of the moonballdemonstration, the two groups reversed roles. The class that had the moonball demonstration took the test, while the testtakers participated in the moonball demonstration.

The experiment was arranged as a nonequivalent group design; that is, classes were assigned to either the experimental group or the control group randomly. Generally the last class seated became the “A” group that took the quiz before doing the moonball activity, and the first class seated became the “B” group that took the quiz after doing the moonball activity. It was expected that some groups would receive more instruction in the classroom, and be better prepared than others, and therefore, some sets would showa decline rather than an increase in average scores.

The test itself consisted of 14 questions, including both multiple choice and matching questions, designed so that there would be few perfect scores. Some questions only tested basic recall of facts, such as “How long does it take the moon to go through one full cycle?” Other questions required higher order thinking skills, such as matching a set of moon diagrams to the names of the phases. Still other questions were designed to trap studentswithcommon misconceptions: “Why do the astronauts have to wear a spacesuit on the moon?” One of the choices was “There is no gravity on the moon,” a common misconception.

There were two hypotheses that the data could validate or falsify: (1) A majority of sets would show an increase in learning after participating in the moonball demonstration and (2) students from Title 1 schools would benefit more from the moonball demonstration than other students.

Two anomalies were discarded from the data set. In one case an A group included ESL (English as a Second Language) students even though the test was in English. In another case the A group had performed the moonball demonstration in their classroom the day before coming to the planetarium. The final data set consisted of 32 sets (64 classes), for a total of about 1,900 students.

Results

The average improvement in scores was 19.48%. Only two sets showed no improvement. The data overwhelmingly showed that the moonball demonstration helped reinforce what students learned in the planetarium program.

To determine whether Title 1 schools benefited more from the moonball demonstration than other schools, the sets were sorted by the percent of increase. A count of Title 1 schools whose percentage of increase was above the median score was compared to the count of Title 1 schools below the median.

Five Title 1 schools were in the groupbelowthe median gain, while 11 Title 1 schools were in the group above the median. In other words, more than twice as many Title 1 schools showed large gains than showed smaller gains. The impact of the moonball demonstration on student learning was much greater for Title 1 schools than for other schools.

The planetarium experience has been shown by previous researchers to be a valuable learning environment. The data presented in this study, however, show that whenever possible, planetariums should provide students with live science demonstrations in addition to the planetarium program itself. This study also reinforces the idea that the planetarium is a unique resource for school districts, providing students with learning and laboratory experiences that cannot be obtained in most classrooms.

Bibliography

Akey, John M., “The Behavioral Selection of the Planetarium Concepts Appropriate for Second Grade Students,”Dissertation Abstracts, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University Microfilms, Inc., XXXIV (1973-74), 184A-185-A.

Battaglini, Dennis W., “An Experimental Study of the Science Curriculum Improvement Study Involving Fourth Graders’ Ability to Understand Concepts of Relative Position and Motion Using the Planetarium asaTesting Device,”Dissertation Abstracts, Ann Arbor, Michigan,University Microfilms, Inc., XXXII (1971-72), 4916-A.

Berland, Theodore, “Classroom for the Space Age,”ScienceDigest,XLIX(January,1961),42-47.

Bishop, Jeanne, “Planetarium Methods Based On the Research Of Jean Piaget,” Planetarian, 5-3 (1976), 3-8.

Bondurant, Russell L., Jr., “An Assessment of Certain Skills Possessed by Fifth Grade Students Used to Successfully Identify Constellations in a Planetarium,” Dissertation Abstracts, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University Microfilms, Inc., XXXVI (197576), 7828-A.

Burnette, Walter N., Jr., “Use of the Planetarium in Changing Attitudes and Achievement in Earth-Space Science Education,” Dissertation Abstracts, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University Microfilms, Inc., XXXVII (1976-77), 5726-A.

Chamberlain, Joseph M., “The Administration of a Planetarium as an Educational Institution,” Dissertation Abstracts, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University Microfilms, Inc., XXIII (1962-63), 4180.

Cottrill, Phillip K., “A Study Comparing Achievement of Fourth Grade Classes in Indirect and Direct Approaches to Planetarium Teaching,” Dissertation Abstracts, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University Microfilms, Inc., XXXVII (1976-77), 7055-A.

Curtin, John T., “An Analysis of Planetarium Program Content and the Classification of Demonstrators’Questions,” Dissertation Abstracts, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University Microfilms, Inc., XXXIX (1968-69), 56A.

Dean, Norman J. and Gregory M. Lauck, “Planetarium Instruction: Using an Open Sky Test,” Science Teacher, XXXIX, (May, 1972), 54-55.

Downing, George L., “A Normative Survey of Planetarium Directors in the United States and Canada to Determine Current Practices in Adult Education and Opinions Regarding Selected Adult Learning Principles,” Dissertation Abstracts, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University Microfilms, Inc., XXXIII (1972-73), 134-A-135-A.

Etheridge, Dale A., “Simulation and Representation in Visual Learning: The Planetarium as a Simulation Device,” Dissertation Abstracts, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University Microfilms, Inc., XXXVII (1976-77), 2093-A.

Fowler, James A., “The Place of Planetaria in Teaching Space Science,” School Science and Mathematics, LX, (October, 1960),539-543.

Gaddy, James, “Planetarium for K-14,” American School and University, XXXVI, (July, 1964), 30-31.

Gardner, Marjorie H., “The Planetarium as an EducationalTool,”ScienceTeacher, XXXI, (October,1964), 14-15.

Geiger, H. Bruce, “How to Integrate Planetarium Usage into the Educational Program,” Nation’s Schools, LXXXV, (May, 1970),112-113.

Guilbert, Edward H., “A Standardized Test in Collegiate Descriptive Astronomy on Selected Concepts Which can be Demonstrated in the Planetarium,” Dissertation Abstracts, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University Microfilms, Inc., XXXIII, (1972-73), 1537-A.

Heyde, Russell J., “A Model of Strategies for Planetarium Education Instruction,” School Science and Mathematics, LXXII, (March, 1972), 201-207.

Jamison, Marion M., “A Consideration of the Planetarium and the Lecturer as Agents to Effect Change in Administrators Regarding Social Attitudes in School and Community,” Dissertation Abstracts, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University Microfilms, Inc., XXXIII, (1972-73, 5439-A-5440-A.

Korey, Ruth A., “Contributions of Planetariums to Elementary Education,” Dissertation Abstracts, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University Microfilms, Inc., XXV, (1964-65), 2379.

Kratz, Robert N., “Everyone Has a Sky: A Planetarium Helps the SlowLearner,” Clearinghouse,XLIII, (February,1969), 349-350.

Kratz, Robert N., “Planetarium Usage Looks Up,” Nation’s Schools, LXXXI, (May, 1968), 74-75.

McDonald, Dale E., “The Utilization of Planetaria and Observatories in Secondary Schools,” Dissertation Abstracts, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University Microfilms, Inc., XXVII, (1966-67), 4084-A.

Mergler, Robert, “The Planetarium in the Junior High Science Curriculum,” School Science and Mathematics, LXXV, (November, 1975), 591-592.

Moore, Maurice G., “An Analysis and Evaluation of Planetarium Programming as it Relates to the Science Education of Adults in the Community,” Dissertation Abstracts, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University Microfilms, Inc., XXVI (1965-66), 4417-4418.

Moore, Maurice G., “The Planetarium: An Instructional Medium,” Journal of Geography, LXVI (October, 1967), 378-379.

Noble, Margaret K., “The Planetarium and Space Science in the Elementary School,” Science Education, XLVIII (February, 1964), 28-31.

Phillips, Francis I and Walter Peterson, “A Planetarium Visit,” The Volta Review, LV (November, 1953), 435-438.

Reed, George, “A Comparison of the Effectiveness of the Planetarium and the Classroom Chalkboard and Celestial Globe in the Teaching of Specific Astronomical Concepts,” Dissertation Abstracts, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University Microfilms, Inc., XXXI (1970-71), 4580-A.

Reed, George, “Is the Planetarium a More Effective Teaching Device than the Combination of the Classroom Chalkboard and Celestial Globe?” School Science and Mathematics, LXX (June, 1970), 487-492.

Reed, George, “The Affective Value of a Planetarium in the Scheduling of a College Astronomy Course,” School Science and Mathematics, LXXV (December, 1975),716-722.

Reed, George, “The Planetarium Versus the Classroom: An Inquiry into Earlier Implications,” School Science and Mathematics, LXXIII (October, 1973), 553-555.

Reed, George and James Reed Campbell, “A Comparison of the Effectiveness of the Planetarium and the Classroom Chalkboard and Celestial Globe in the Teaching of Specific Astronomical Concepts,” School Science and Mathematics, LXXII (May, 1972), 368-374.

Ridky, Robert W., “A Study of Planetarium Effectiveness on Student Achievement, Perceptions, and Retention,” Dissertation Abstracts, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University Microfilms, Inc., XXXIV (1973-74), 6477-A.

Ridky, Robert W., “The Mystique Effectof the Planetarium,” School Science and Mathematics, LXXV (October, 1975), 505-508.

Rosemergy, John C., “An Experimental Study of the Effectiveness of a Planetarium in Teaching Selected Astronomical Phenomena to Sixth Grade Children,” Dissertation Abstracts, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University Microfilms, Inc., XXVIII (196768), 4959-A-4960-A.

Rosemergy, John C., “The Planetarium: Stars and Space in School,” School Executive, LXXIX (October, 1959), 70-71.

Smith, Billy A., “An Experimental Comparison of Two Techniques (Planetarium Lecture-Demonstration and Classroom Lecture-Demonstration) of Teaching Selected Astronomical Concepts to Sixth Grade Students,” Dissertation Abstracts, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University Microfilms, Inc., XXVII (1966-67), 887-A.

Smith, Theodore V., “A Study of the Effectiveness of the Planetarium and the Classroom in the Teaching of Constellations,” Dissertation Abstracts, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University Microfilms, Inc., XXXVII (1976-77), 1478-A.

Smith, Theodore V., “The Planetarium in Education: A Review of the Literature,” ERIC, ED 111 658, 1974, 65 pages.

Sonntag, Mark, “Planetarium/Spatial Orientation Ability Connection,” Planetarian, 11-1 (1982), 9-13.

Sonntag, Mark, “Spatial Ability and Planetarium Education,” Planetarian, 17-1 (1988),

34-35. Sonntag, Mark, “Spatial Ability, Science, and Sex,” Planetarian, 17-4 (1988), 37-39.

Sonntag, Mark, “Update On Research Into the Effect Of Teaching Method and Spatial Visualization Ability On Planetarium Education,” Planetarian, 15-2 (1986), 20-21

Soroka, John, “Considerations For Planetarium Educators,” Planetarian, 3-3/4 (1974), 112-123.

Sunal, Dennis W., “Analysis of Research on the Educational Uses of a Planetarium,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, XIII (July, 1976), 345-349.

Sunal, Dennis W., “The Planetarium in Education: An Experimental Study of the Attainment of Perceived Goals,” Dissertation Abstracts, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University Microfilms, Inc., XXXIV (1973-74), 1779-A.

Urke, Torbjørn, “Research On Teaching Astronomy With A Planetarium,” Planetarian, 22-4 (1993), 19-20.

Warneking, Glenn E., “Planetarium Education in the 1970’s: Time for Assessment,” Science Teacher, XXXVII (October, 1970), 14-15.

Williams, Herbert N., “The Planetarium in Modern Education,” School Board Journal, CXLI (September, 1960), 40.

Wright, Delivee L., “Effectiveness of the Planetarium and Different Methods of its Utilization in Teaching Astronomy,” Dissertation Abstracts, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University Microfilms, Inc., XXX (1969-70), 507-A.