Challenging Students Ideas About Earth's Interior Structure Using a Model-based, Conceptual Change Approach in a Large Class Setting

David N. Steer Department of Geology, University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-4101 [email protected] Catharine C. Knight Educational Foundations & Leadership, College of Education, University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-4208 [email protected] Katharine D. Owens Department of Curricular and Instructional Studies, University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-4205 [email protected] David A. McConnell Department of Geology, University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-4101 [email protected]

ABSTRACT the outcome related to a concept. Students then share their views and ideas with peers. This idea sharing is a A model-based, conceptual change approach to teaching scaffolding technique to help students articulate their was found to improve student understanding of earth beliefs about the topic at hand and then resolve conflicts structure in a large (100+ student) inquiry-based, general (Zeidler, 1997). At the university level, professors then education setting. Results from paired pre- and commonly step in to challenge students to resolve post-instruction sketches indicated that 19% (n = 18/97) conflicts that arise when their initial ideas are not of the students began the class with naïve preconceptions supported by actual data, expert models or other of the structure of the interior of the Earth. Many of the information. Students learn how to extend and transfer remaining students (95%; n = 75/79) began the lesson their knowledge through this process of raising and believing that the crust is several hundred kilometers answering questions about the application of concepts to thick. Peer discussion and instruction appeared to be new situations. effective in eliminating most naive preconceptions. Several conditions are needed for conceptual change Analyses of post-instruction sketches indicated that 3% to occur and multiple outcomes are possible even when (n = 3/97) of all students retained naïve preconceptions, these conditions are present. Conceptual change is 18% (n = 18/97) changed their views from naïve to the facilitated when students acknowledge confusion about "thick crust" view, 58% (n = 58/97) began to recognize their current views, when the new framework appears the relative scales of the boundaries with 30% (n = 28/97) plausible, when students understand the clarified drawing the sketch with scaled boundaries. Many of the framework, when the concept is fruitful in addressing students (65%; n = 76/117) could correctly answer new situations and when they accept the data (Posner, formative earth structure conceptual questions that were 1982; Posner et al., 1982; Thorley and Stofflet, 1996; Chinn asked five lessons after the earth structure lesson was and Brewer, 1998). These conditions all operate within taught. A comparison of pre- and post-course conceptual the students' conceptual ecologies that include their test question responses indicated that 13-20% more existing knowledge, familiar analogies and metaphors, students could correctly answer similar questions two and past experiences (Thorley and Sofflett, 1996; NRC, months after the model-based, conceptual change plate 2000). In response to new conceptual challenges, tectonics lessons were taught. students' understanding may not change if they ignore, reject, are uncertain of, reinterpret or exclude new data (Chinn and Brewer, 1998). Change is also less likely if INTRODUCTION observations or situations appear consistent with their existing conceptual framework (Zeidler, 1997). Conceptual change instruction in the sciences is a well known strategy for improving student understanding of MODELS AND MODEL BUILDING major scientific concepts and has been widely explored in the areas of biology (Pfundt and Reindeers, 1991; The development of advanced mental images that Gabel, 1993; Barrass, 1996), physics (Hestenes et al., 1992; embody critical content, processes and underlying Dykstra et al., 1992; Pfister and Laws, 1995) and concepts (conceptual models) of a topic are known to chemistry (Bradley and Brand, 1985; Garnett and play a significant role in the advancement of science Treagust, 1992; Schmidt et al., 2003). Conceptual change (Hesse, 1966; Harre, 1970). By definition, models are in the learning of science involves the students' shifting groups of objects, symbols or images that represent some from naïve views, preconceptions or alternative part or aspect of another system and are central to all conceptions to accurate understandings driven by learning (Gilbert, 1991; NRC, 2000; Gilbert and Ireton, strongly supported scientific theories and evidence. 2003). Model building (from hands-on concrete to Helping students shift from simplistic views to more advanced mental-based conceptual) is recognized as accurate views can be facilitated using hands-on concrete essential to the learning of science (NRC, 1996; NRC, models in conjunction with effective instructor support 2000). Hence, various types of models (e.g. metaphors, to clarify students' cognitive understanding (Gilbert and physical, mathematical, computational) are currently Ireton, 2003). used to promote learning of science (Franco et al., 1999; Stepans (2003) formalized a multi-stage Conceptual Gobert, 2000; Schwartz, 2002; Gilbert and Ireton, 2003). Change Model (CCM - Figure 1) that provides a The cognitive steps involved in a learner's building of framework to improve learning. Students first write conceptual models have been a focus of research in down their beliefs by making a prediction or formulating cognitive psychology for several decades (Harre, 1976;

Steer et al. - Changing Students’ Ideas About Earth’s Interior 415 Figure 1. Instructional schema used to promote conceptual change through in-class physical modeling. In the Preconceptions phase, a) students face and discuss their preconceptions. Students create novice models, are presented with conflicting data and make revisions in b) the Model Development Phase. At c) students evaluate their models and begin to develop mental models that emphasize processes. Mental models are validated at d) as students apply their mental models in new situations or to more advanced topics.

Johnson and Laird, 1989; Nagel, 1987; Kuhn and Lao, (Figure 1b). The validation phase also involves the 1998). meta-cognitive tasks of comparing and contrasting the In recent years, education research has focused on novice (i.e. students') models with those developed by model building as a conduit for learning science (Franco knowledgeable experts (Figure 1c). The knowledge et al., 1999; Clement, 2000; Gobert, 2000; Schwarz, 2002). gained from the modeling process is thus more readily A significant amount of science teaching research has transferred to a mental model that encompasses the been conducted that deals with evaluating cause and content and the processes of the concept. The cycle effect models (Raghaven and Glaser, 1995; White and continues as students apply these new and improved Frederiksen, 1998), teaching and learning with concrete mental models to other concepts in the course (Figure models (Gilbert, 1991; Gilbert and Ireton, 2003) and the 1d). revising of concrete models (Clement et al., 1989; Stewart Concrete physical models can be useful in a large and Hafner, 1991). Many education scholars argue that class setting where funds and physical facilities may be a advanced mental models are constructed over time using limiting factor. Concrete physical models are designed to concrete activities that scaffold more complex student represent the appearance, function or an aspect of their learning, rather than via lecture or verbal description target and can be handled and manipulated by students (Guzzetti et al., 2000). Further, the core concepts (Gilbert and Ireton, 2003). These simplified underlying a model must be repeatedly reinforced with representations of reality are used to support the practice throughout the course to facilitate long-term students' learning process by bridging ideas and retention (Ericsson, 1996). promoting understanding of relationships and processes Clement (2000) proposed a framework for iterative, by means of a mental image constructed in long-term constructive model development designed to enhance memory for later retrieval (NRC, 1996). Polya's (1979) learning that supports conceptual change in students systematic problem solving approach can be used to (Figure 1). In Clement's (2000) framework, students guide and support hands-on model-building activities. should build a hands-on naïve model pertinent to a Polya asserts that students must: 1) Understand what concept and share their views on the construction and they are trying to model; 2) Devise a plan to create the validity of the model (Figure 1a). Supporting and/or model; 3) Carry out their plan; and 4) Reflect on their conflicting data are then presented that require students efforts by looking back at their initial ideas. Students use to evaluate and revise their models. Guided model and refine concrete models (in alignment with data and revision becomes a primary self-assessment tool used to research presented in class) that can help them develop promote learning. Models developed by experts are used mental models that assist in their conceptual to validate (or discuss the limitations of) student models understanding of process and relationships, rather than

416 Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 4, September, 2005, p. 415-421 Boundaries appear to be concentric spheres (circles). teaching assistants circulated around the room asking Sketch displays crust, mantle, core (as a unit or inner and students questions about their models. Students then outer core separately). compared their completed physical models to their naïve, initial drawings. An expert (USGS) model was Boundaries are correctly labeled. then shown to the students and explained. Students then Drawing appears to demonstrate some differences in scale compared and contrasted their physical models (Figure (e.g. Crust is thinner than other layers but > 1 mm from 1c: Model Validation Phase) with that expert model. circle edge). Next, students again individually drew a circular, Crust is nearly to scale (use the circle already drawn on the cross-sectional diagram to scale. Finally students put paper or 1 mm or less from edge). their ideas down in writing by explaining how their new understanding might relate to additional topics such as Table 1. Evaluation rubric for Earth cross section the structure of a tectonic plate (Figure 1d: Model sketched (1 point each). Extension Phase). The cycle was repeated as students constructed and described clay models for transform, memories that are mere images unconnected to the divergent and convergent plate boundaries. underlying concepts. Incomplete understanding and alternative Data Collection and Evaluation - Students were conceptions about Earth's structure and plate boundaries provided a handout displaying a circle and instructions has been shown to hinder the learning of processes "Sketch a cross section (to scale) of the interior of the associated with earthquakes (Barrow and Haskins, 1996) Earth and label the major boundaries." Pre- and and other aspects of the theory of plate tectonics (Gobert, post-modeling sketches were evaluating by awarding 2000). A study of secondary school students by one point per criteria (Table 1). This rubric was DeLaughter et al (1998) indicated that poor student developed by analyzing sketches from a previous conceptual models of the interior of the earth are semester where some students displayed widely varying apparent as early as 8th grade and we previously had views of the interior of the Earth (displayed layers with observed similar poor student understanding of this varying geometries and comprised of various materials). topic in our students. Consequently, we used the topic of Students with an alternative conception of the interior of Earth's interior structure and plate boundaries to test the the earth scored 0 points (Figure 2 a). Students who widely used CCM approach with concrete models recognized that the earth interior consists of multiple (Figure 1) to ascertain if this approach improved concentric spheres scored 1 (Figure 2 b). Students who conceptual understanding. drew only three or four concentric spheres (indicating that they held either the chemical or physical view) METHODS scored 2 points, 3 points if boundaries were correctly labeled (Figures 2 c and 2d). When the student diagram Instructional - Students who agreed to participate in this showed correctly labeled concentric spheres and study (n=97) were enrolled in the general education indicated the crust was much thinner than other course "Earth Science" at a large urban university boundaries (but > 1 mm from the outer circle), students (23,000+ students). The study population closely scored 4 points (Figure 2 e). Students scored 5 points by mirrored the demographics of the broader university in meeting all previous criteria and designating the line that participants included 52% white males (n = 51) and marking the outer circle as the crust (Figure 2 f). As 47% females (n = 46). A total of 11% (n = 11) of the suggested by Libarkin et al (2005) and based on the students in this study self identified as ethnic minority. responses from previous years, many of the students As is common at many large universities, this Earth would be familiar with the idea that the interior of the Science course had a large enrollment (160 per section) earth consisted of three to four spherically symmetric and included no lab periods. The course was taught in a layers with different thicknesses (would score 2-3 tiered lecture hall with seats facing a central projection points). A few students could be expected to grasp the screen. Students worked in assigned 4-person learning concept of scale by drawing the crust as a very thin layer teams to complete a variety of active-learning activities compared to the other major layers of the Earth (would related to the topics of discussion during every lesson in score 4-5). this course. This particular lesson occured after the first Student diagrams were evaluated by two instructors exam block (of 8 lessons) and was the first in a series of (Steer and McConnell). Pre- and post-instruction nine class meetings covering concepts associated with diagrams were photocopied, identifying pieces of plate tectonics. information (e.g. student name and section) were In our class, students completed a pre-class reading removed and coded IDs were placed on each diagram. assignment about Earth structure. Students then drew Each instructor then evaluated each diagram using the cross-sectional diagrams of Earth's major mechanical same rubric (Table 1). Data for each rater were entered to layers on a circle and then discussed their drawings in a spreadsheet with scores compared using a paired, 4-person groups (Figure 1a: Address Preconceptions two-tailed T-test to determine inter-rater reliability. Once Phase). The instructor then conducted a short lecture reliability was established, student pre- and presenting the major boundaries (e.g. crust-mantle) and post-instruction sketches from one instructor (Steer) evidence derived from scientific investigations for the were compared using paired t-tests as a population and existence of these boundaries. After the lecture, groups by group based on pre-instruction score (0-1: naïve view; again discussed their initial drawings and created a 2-3: limited view; 4-5: acceptable view for college physical model. They constructed scale models (1 mm = freshman non-science majors). Average score 1 km) of major Earth boundaries using a 6.4 m string, normalized gains were also computed for each tape measure and markers to place at appropriate population ([post-pre]/[5-pre]) Student longer term locations (Figure 1b: Model Development Phase). To retention was evaluated by analyzing student responses support their model building process, instructors and on in-class conceptual questions, exams and by

Steer et al. - Changing Students’ Ideas About Earth’s Interior 417 Figure 2. Scanned and manually traced examples evaluated student drawings of interior structure of the earth (pre-instruction). a) score of 0 (misconception or no conceptual framework), b) score of 1 (naïve view), c) score of 2 (multiple concentric layers), d) score of 3 (labeled multiple concentric layers), e) score of 4 (multiple concentric layers with some scale for crust) and f) score of 5 (advanced level of entry-level understanding). comparing pre- and post-test scores (post test at the end not adjusted. Pre- and post-instruction scores were of the semester) for an interior structure of the earth indistinguishable between raters when pair-wise question from the Geoscience Concept Inventory compared (p = 0.5 for both data sets). (Libarkin and Anderson, in press). Evidence of Learning - The use of the conceptual RESULTS change approach using simple models appeared to enhance learning in a large class (160+ students) setting. Inter-rater Reliability - Though there were some scoring There were no statistically significant gender differences discrepancies between raters, there were no statistically in pre-instruction scores (p = 0.80). Qualitatively, a significant differences in scores between evaluators in review of the initial student diagrams indicated that the this study. The initial screen of these data indicated that majority (81%, n=79/97) were able to draw a five (four pre- and one post-instruction) drawings had rudimentary schematic of the Earth (drawing showed scores that varied by 2 points. Each of these drawings concentric spheres with major boundaries) prior to was separately reviewed. In two cases, one rater (Steer) instruction (scored 2 or higher). Of those students with scored 0 points for diagrams that displayed lines the concentric view, most (95%, n= 75/79) began the class radiating outward from the center of the earth. By strict with the preconception that the crust of the Earth was application of the rubric, McConnell argued that there several 100's of km thick based on their drawings, thus were multiple concentric spheres embedded in the scoring 3 or 4 points (Figure 2 d and e). A significant drawing and awarded 2 points. Two other discrepancies proportion of the students (19%, n=18/97) began the dealt with differences in interpretation of "differences in class with widely varying preconceptions of the scale." In both cases, McConnell argued that the structure of the interior of the Earth ( Figure 2a and b: e.g. drawings with a very small core (inner and outer horizontal or vertical layers, concentric ovals, all molten combined) were incorrectly scaled. The single interior). Only four students appeared to hold the post-instruction discrepancy was a scoring error. Scores desired conceptual view before instruction (scored 5 for the diagrams that varied by 2 points were adjusted points). accordingly (up or down by 1 point) to better reflect the Student scores on sketches of the interior of the earth scoring intent of the rubric. There were eight other pre- changed significantly (Figure 3) after building and and seventeen other post-instruction scores (out of 97) analyzing the simple scale model of the interior structure that varied by one point. There were no obvious trends to of the Earth. There were no statistically significant these discrepancies and scores for these diagrams were gender differences post-instruction scores (p = 0.30).

418 Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 4, September, 2005, p. 415-421 were incorrect. By completion of the "Model Validation phase" ( Figure 1 c), students holding simplistic views evolved to the point the majority (16/18) could sketch and label a geometrically acceptable model with 10 of 18 students incorporating scale into their diagrams. As suggested could happen by Chinn and Brewer (1998), several students (n =3) appeared to have ignored, rejected or excluded the data as they continued to draw inadequate representations (scored 0 or 1) for the interior of the earth. For students with a more advanced, yet still limited, view of the interior of the earth (scoring 2 or 3 on pre-instruction diagrams) progress was manifested in an improved understanding of the scale of the crust compared to the other major layers. However, on the post-instruction diagram, only 30% of these students (17/58) correctly drew the crust to scale (scored 5). The Figure 3. Distribution of student scores for sketches actions of the remaining students (n = 41/58) illustrated of the interior of the earth (gray pre-and black that many students reinterpreted the data (Chinn and post-instruction). Brewer, 1998) or made only peripheral changes to better fit their existing conceptual ecologies (Zeidler, 1997). Overall, student scores on the sketches increased from Improvement for students with the more accurate 2.6 +/- 1.2 on the pre-test to 4.0 +/- 1.0 on the post-test for conceptual model of the earth (scored 4 or 5 on pre-test) an overall normalized gain of 58% (n=97; p < 0.000001). occurred as more students appropriately scaled the These results indicate that the typical student moved thickness of the crust (10 compared to 5/21 initially). from a basic view of the interior of the Earth (e.g. three or Such data suggest that students with various conceptual four correctly labeled, concentric spheres) to a view that starting points can improve their level of understanding included some recognition that scale was important to during a class, but did they retain that improved view include in their view ( Figure 2e). Students who had beyond the immediate class? alternative conceptions or very limited conceptual The topic of scale of Earth boundaries was extended ( frameworks about the Earth's interior (scored 0-1 on Figure 1d) as students probed their views on the nature pre-test) experienced the greatest change. These 18 of the lithosphere and kinematics of plate boundaries. In students increased their average score from 0.8 +/- 0.4 to learning teams of four, students built three-dimensional 3.3 +/- 1.3 for a normalized gain of 59% (p < 0.000001). clay models of the lithosphere for divergent, convergent Two of these students displayed no change and one and transform plate boundaries. These activities were student scored lower on the post-instruction diagram. integrated with other active learning exercises (concept Students who had rudimentary conceptual frameworks maps, concept test questions, cross sections) to help them about the Earth's interior (scored 2-3 on pre-test) also build accurate mental models of these complex, abstract improved their conceptual framework as evidenced by a systems. Clay models were ideal for student normalized gain of 62% (from 2.6 +/- 0.5 to 4.1 +/- 0.8; n investigations because the models could be adjusted and = 58; p < 0.000001). Students who scored the highest (4 numerous features can be placed directly on the models and 5 points; n = 21) on the pre-test did not realize (e.g. earthquake foci, trench locations, mountains, statistically significant normalized gains (p > 0.05). volcanoes). Such modeling required students to translate primarily two-dimensional information that is presented DISCUSSION as diagrams or 2-D maps in textbooks into actual three-dimensional models. The scale of the thickness of A model-based conceptual change approach did appear the crust compared that of a tectonic plate and the upper to change student views concerning the interior structure mantle was continually reinforced during these of the earth. Most student alternative conceptions exercises. (students scoring 0 or 1 on the initial diagram) appeared Formative and summative evaluations indicated to be quickly addressed as students discussed their that students retained some portion of their improved sketches with one another during the "Address conceptual models of the interior of the Earth through Preconceptions Phase" ( Figure 1a). During this the end of the course. At the conclusion of the eight discussion period, students with alternative conceptions lesson plate tectonics block, 65% (76/117) of the students quickly realized that their simple views were not correctly answered the following conceptual question adequate. These team discussions were validated when (McConnell et al., 2003) in class: students constructed a physical model during the "Model Development Phase' ( Figure 1 b) and during the "Which is the best analogy? The thickness of an egg shell lecture portion of the class when an expert model was is approximately 1-2% of the radius of an egg. This is presented and discussed. Even after the lecture, most analogous to the thickness of the ______relative to the groups (90%; 36/40 groups) continued to hold their radius of Earth. preconception about the thickness of the crust as evidenced by the location of the crust-mantle marker on a. oceanic crust b. continental crust their physical string models. It was not until the c. Lithosphere d. mantle." instructor and teaching assistant suggested that students' compare the scale of their crust to that of the A comparison of results from pre- and post-test results expert model projected on a screen did students from the Geosciences Concept Inventory (see GCI at recognize that their models for the crustal boundary http://www-msc.bhsu.edu/eps/TEST%20CONSTRUC

Steer et al. - Changing Students’ Ideas About Earth’s Interior 419 TION%20DEC.doc) indicated that 44% (48 of 109) science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. correctly answered a structure of the Earth question 35, p. 623-654. compared to 31% (40 of 130) on the pre test (non-paired Clement, J., Brown, D. and Zeitsman, A., 1989, Not all results). Likewise, on a question concerning the physical preconceptions are misconceptions: finding location of tectonic plates, 46% (50/109) correctly 'anchoring conceptions' for grounding instruction on responded on the post-test compared to 26% on the students' intuitions, International Journal of Science pre-test (non-paired results). These data and Education, v. 11, p. 554-565. observations support the contention that it is very Clement J., 2000, Model based learning as a key research difficult to affect conceptual change in students (Posner, area for science education, International Journal of 1982; Posner et al., 1982; Thorley and Stofflet, 1996; Science Education, v. 22, p. 1041-1053. Zeidler, 1997), but that repeated exposure to a concept, in DeLaughter, J.E., Bain, K.R., Stein, C.A. and Stein, S., concert with instructor guidance, can effect change. 1998, Preconceptions abound among students in an introductory earth science course, EOS, v. 79, p. SUMMARY 429-432. Dykstra, D.I, 1992, Studying conceptual change in Earth structure is a key element in the guiding paradigm learning physics, Science Education, v. 76, p. 615-652. of plate tectonics that is taught in nearly every Ericsson, K.A., 1996. The Role of Deliberate Practice in introductory geology course in the nation. It is important the Acquisition of Expert Performance, Psych. Rev., for all students to understand earth structure because it 100 (3), 363-406. influences how non-science majors view processes that Franco, H., Barros, H.L., Colinvaux, D., Krapas, S., shape the world in which they live and it lays the Queiroz, G. and Alves, F., 1999, From scientists' and foundation for geology majors to continue their study of inventors' minds to some scientific and technological the Earth. Pictorial models are generally used to teach products: relationships between theories, models, plate tectonics because the processes embodied therein mental models and conceptions, International are largely abstract and cannot be directly observed in Journal of Science Education, v. 21, p. 277-291. their entirety. This research has begun to show that Gabel, D.L., 1993, Handbook of Research on Science students bring naïve preconceptions to the classrooms Teaching and Learning Project, NSTA Press, that interfere with their science learning. This research Washington, DC., 598 p. has also shown that student alternative conceptions Garnett, P.J. and Treagust, D.F., 1992, Conceptual about earth structure are difficult to modify. The Difficulties Experienced by Senior High School conceptual change approach coupled with physical Students of Electrochemistry: Electrochemical modeling of earth structure and other related topics (Galvanic) and Electrolytic Cells, Journal of Research appears to facilitate learning of the content, in Science Education, v. 29, p. 1079-1099. relationships, and processes of plate tectonics. As Gilbert, S.W., 1991, Model Building and Definition of students compared, contrasted and revised their simple Science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. physical models, they appeared to learn how to create 28, p. 73-79. more advanced mental models of earth structure. More Gilbert, S.W. and Ireton S.W., 2003. Understanding research is needed to determine the extent to which Models in Earth and Space Science, NSTA Press, physical model building overcomes preconceptions and Arlington, VA., 124 p. promotes development of appropriate advanced mental Gobert, J.D., 2000, A typology of causal models for plate models in students. Such research will expand the tectonics: Inferential power and barriers to database of known preconceptions that hinder learning, understanding, International Journal of Science to determine the efficacy of having students construct Education, v. 22, p. 937-977. physical models in large classroom settings, and to Guzzetti, B.J., 2000, Learning Counter-Intuitive Science document those modeling activities that best facilitate Concepts: What Have We Learned from Over a learning of plate tectonics. Decade of Research?, Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, v. 16, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS p. 89-98. Harre, R., 1970, The principles of scientific thinking, The authors wish to thank reviewers whose helpful University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 324 p. comments significantly improved this manuscript. This Hesse, M.B., 1966, Models and Analogies in Science, research was funded in part by the National Science University of Norte Dame Press, Norte Dame, IN, Foundation CCLI (A&I) grant #0087894. 184 p. Hestenes, D. Wells, M. and Swackhamer, G., 1992, Force REFERENCES concept inventory, Physics Teacher, v. 30, p. 141-158. Johnson-Laird, P.N., 1989, Reasoning by Model: The Barrass, Robert, 1996, Locusts for student-centered Case of Multiple Quantification, Psychological learning, Journal of Biological Learning, v. 30, p. Review, v. 96, p. 658-673. 22-26. Kuhn, D. and Lao, J., 1998, Contemplation and Barrow, L. and Haskins, S., 1996, Earthquake knowledge Conceptual Change: Integrating Perspectives from and experiences of introductory geology students, Social and Cognitive Psychology, Dev. Rev., v. 18, p. Journal of College Science Teaching, v. 26, p. 125-154. 143-146. Libarkin, J.C., Anderson, S.W., Science, J.D., Beilfuss, M. Bradley, J.D. and Brand, M., 1985, Stamping Out and Boone, W., 2005, Qualitative analysis of college Misconceptions, Journal of Chemical Education, v. students' ideas about the Earth: Interviews and 62, p. 318. open-ended questioners, Journal of Geoscience Chinn, C.A. and Brewer, W.F., 1998, An empirical test of Education, v. 53, p. 17-26. a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in

420 Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 4, September, 2005, p. 415-421 Libarkin, J.C. and Anderson, S.W., 2005, Assessment of Schmidt, H., Baumgartner, T. and Eybe, H., 2003, learning in entry-level Geoscience courses: Results Changing Ideas about the Periodic Table of Elements from the Geosciences Concept Inventory, Journal of and Students' Alternative Concepts of Isotopes and Geoscience Edducation, v. 53, p. 394-401. Allotropes, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, McConnell, D., Steer, D., Owens, K., Borowski, W., Dick, v. 40, p. 257-277. J., Knott, J., Konigsberg, A., Malone, M., McGrew, H., Schwartz, C.V., 2002, Using model-centered science and Van Horn, S., 2003, Using conceptests in instruction to foster students' epistemologies in multiple introductory courses, GSA Abstracts with learning with models, presented at Model-Centered Programs, v. 34, p. 441. Science Instruction, AERA, New Orleans, LA, 13 p. National Research Council, 1996, National Science Stepans, J., 2003, Targeting Students' Science Education Standards, National Academy Press, Misconceptions: Physical Science Concepts Using Washington D.C., 262 p. the Conceptual Change Model, Showboard Inc., National Research Council, 2000, How People Learn: Tampa, FL, 278 p. Brain, Mind, Experience and School, National Stewart, J. and Hafner, R., 1991, Extending the Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 374 p. Conception of "Problem" in Problem-Solving Pfister, H. and Laws, P., 1995, Physics Teacher, v. 33, p. Research, Science Education, v. 75,p. 105-120. 214-220. Thorley, R.N. and Stofflet, R.T., 1996, Representation of Pfundt, H. and Reindeers, d., 1991, Students' Alternative the Conceptual Change Model in science teacher Frameworks and Science Education, 3rd ed., Institut education, Science Education, v. 80, p. 317-339. fuer die Paedagogik der Naturwissenschaften, Keil, White, B. Y. and Frederiksen, J. R., 1998, Inquiry, Germany, 317 p. Modeling, and Metacognition: Making Science Polya, G., 1979, More in guessing and proving, Two-year Accessible to All Students, Cognition and College Mathematics Journal, v. 10, p. 255-258. Instruction, v. 16, p. 3-118. Posner, G.J., 1982, A Cognitive Science Conception of Zeidler, D.L., 1997, The central role of fallacious thinking Curriculum and Instruction, Journal of Curricular in science education, Science Education, v. 81, p. Studies, v. 14, p. 343-351. 483-496. Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W. and Gertzon, W.A., 1982, Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change, Science Education, v. 66, p. 211-217. Raghaven, K. and Glaser, R., 1995, Model-based analysis and reasoning in science: The MARS curriculum, Science Education, v. 79, p. 37-61.

Steer et al. - Changing Students’ Ideas About Earth’s Interior 421 Membership Application or Renewal Form Name: ______Phone: ______Mailing Address: ______Fax: ______Email: ______City: ______State: ______Zip: ______

___College/University Professor @ ______Membership Rates (US funds) ___Precollege Teacher @ ______Regular USA $35 ______Other @ ______Outside USA $47 _____ Student–USA $20 _____ Checks, MasterCard, or VISA (US funds Student–outside USA $32 _____ only) are payable to:National Association of Retired NAGT member $30 _____ Library Subscriptions Geoscience Teachers. Mail to: NAGT, PO Regular USA $55 _____ Box 5443, Bellingham, WA 98227-5443 Outside USA $67 ______New ______Renewal

q Check q Credit card: MC/VISA (circle one) Number: ______Signature: ______Exp. Date ______

The Journal and membership year runs from January to December. Subscriptions received after June 1 will begin receiving the Journal in January of the following year. Back issues are available for $15 (foreign $18) each.

*To qualify for student rate, indicate and obtain verification from a NAGT member:

___Undergraduate ___Graduate ______Signature of NAGT member School