The Development of Science Concepts Emergent from Science Museum and Post-Visit Activity Experiences: Students' Construction of Knowledge
By
David Anderson, B.App.Sc., Grad.Dip.Ed., M.Ed.
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Centre for Mathematics and Science Education of the Queensland University of Technology.
September, 1999.
N.B. This reproduction of the thesis contains only black andwhite copies of the original colour graphics.
GUT
QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THESIS EXAMINA TION
CANDIDA TE NAME David Anderson
CENTRE/RESEARCH CONCENTRA TION Mathematics & Science Education
PRINCIPAL SUPERVISOR AlProf Keith Lucas
ASSOCIA TE SUPERVISOR(S) Dr lan Ginns Dr Lynn Dierking
THESIS TITLE The Development of Science Concepts Emergent from Science Museum and Post-VisitActivity Experiences: Students' Construction of Knowledge
Under the requirements of PhD regulation 9.2, the above candidate was examined orally by the Faculty. The members of the panel set up for this examination recommend that the thesis be accepted by the University and forwarded to the appointed Committee for examination.
L�L � Name: ...... Signature ...... £�e_-...... Panel Chairperson (Principal Supervisor)
Signature ......
�.f.�r �...... Name: .....�.�. f...... /:!:�.f�.� ...... Signature ...... Panel Member
Name pt'!,�!;,:��:� .r.t.��...... Signature...... /It ...... H. Under the requirements of PhD regulation 9.15, it is hereby certified that the thesis of the above named candidate has been examined. I recommend on behalf of the Thesis Examination Committee that the thesis be accepted in fulfil/ment of the conditions for the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
�� .�ry.f!S( � ·ff@; Name . . .1Jf.L.�1 Signature .... 0. Date ....'$.�. q.�.'J.q Chair of Examiners (External Thesis Examination Committee) . : Key Words
Constructivism, Informal Learning, Knowledge Construction, Learning, Post-visit Activities, Science Museum, Science Centre
iv Abstract
This research investigated students' construction of knowledge about the topics of magnetism and electricity emergent from a visit to an interactive science centre and subsequent classroom-based activities linked to the science centre exhibits. The significance of this study is that it analyses critically an aspect of school visits to informal learning centres that has been neglected by researchers in the past, namely the influence of post-visit activities in the classroom on subsequent learning and knowledge construction.
Employing an interpretive methodology, the study fo cused on three areas of endeavour. Firstly, the establishment of a set of principles fo r the development of post-visit activities, froma constructivist framework, to facilitate students' learning of science. Secondly, to describe and interpret students' scientific understandings: prior to a visit to a science museum; fo llowing a visit to a science museum; and fo llowing post-visit activities that were related to their museum experiences. Finally, to describe and interpret the ways in which students constructed their understandings: prior to a visit to a science museum; fo llowing a visit to a science museum; and fo llowing post-visit activities directly related to their museum experiences.
The study was designed and implemented in three stages: 1) identification and establishment of the principles fo r design and evaluation of post-visit activities; 2) a pilot study of specific post-visit activities and data gathering strategies related to student construction of knowledge; and 3) interpretation of students' construction of knowledge from a visit to a science museum and subsequent completion of post-visit activities, which constituted the main study. Twelve students were selected from a year 7 class to participate in the study.
This study provides evidence that the series of post-visit activities, related to the museum experiences, resulted in students constructing and reconstructing their personal knowledge of science concepts and principles represented in the science museum exhibits, sometimes towards the accepted scientificunderstanding and
v sometimes in different and surprising ways. Findings demonstrate the interrelationships between learning that occurs at school, at home and in informal learning settings. The study also underscores fo r teachers and staff of science museums and similar centres the importance of planning pre- and post-visit activities, not only to support the development of scientific conceptions, but also to detect and respond to alternative conceptions that may be produced or strengthened during a visit to an informal learning centre. Consistent with contemporary views of constructivism, the study strongly supports the views that: 1) knowledge is uniquely structured by the individual; 2) the processes of knowledge construction are gradual, incremental, and assimilative in nature; 3) changes in conceptual understanding are can be interpreted in the light of prior knowledge and understanding; and 4) knowledge and understanding develop idiosyncratically, progressing and sometimes appearing to regress when compared with contemporary science.
This study has implications fo r teachers, students, museum educators, and the science education community given the lack of research into the processes of knowledge construction in informal contexts and the roles that post-visit activities play in the overall process of learning.
vi Table of Contents
Certificate 111
Key words IV
Abstract V Table of Contents vu
List of Tables XlV
List of Figures XVI
List of Appendices XV1I
List of Abbreviations XV111
Declaration XlX
Acknowledgments xx
Publications XXI
Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 The Construction of Knowledge: An Epistemological Framework for Investigating Learning in Informal Settings 3 1.2.1 A framework for students' construction of knowledge 3 1.2.2 A framework for the researchers' interpretation of knowledge 8 1.3 The Researcher 9 1.4 ResearchObj ectives andMethodology 12 1.5 Summaryof Interpreta tions 13 l.6 Overviewof Thesis 14 1.7 Glossary 17
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 19 2.1 Introduction 19 2.2 A HistoricalPerspec tive ofLearning Paradigms 19 2.3 Variations of Constructi vis m 23 2.4 Theories of Knowledge Construction: Constructivist Views 24 2.4.1 Defining knowledge, understanding, and learning 25 2.4.1.1 Knowledge 25 2.4.l.2 Understanding 27 2.4.l.3 Learning 29 2.4.2 Theoretical views of knowledge construction 30 2.4.2.1 Piagetian views 30 2.4.2.2 Ausubelian views 31 2.4.2.3 Synthesisised views of knowledge construction: Valsiner and Leung's views 34 2.4.2.4 Conceptual change: Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog's views 36 2.4.2.5 Human constructivism: Novakian views 39 2.4.3 Summary of views on learning 41
vii 2.5 The Influence of Context: Factors InfluencingKnowledge Construction 42 2.5.1 The effect of the social context on learning 44 2.5.2 The effect of the physical context on learning 48 2.5.3 The effect of the personal context on learning 55 2.5.3.1 Prior knowledge as a component of the personal context on learning 55 2.5.3.2 Personal relevance as a component of the personal contexton learning 56 2.5.3.3 The affective domain as a component of the personal context on learning 57 2.6 Studiesof Knowledge Construction andLearning 59 2.6.1 Extended term learning effects from museum experiences 60 2.6.2 Knowledge construction emergent from informal settings 63 2.6.3 Knowledge construction emergent from formal contexts 67 2.7 Post-Visit Activity and Informal LearningExper iences 70 2.8 Summary 75
Chapter 3: Methodology, Methods, and Procedure 79 3.1 Introduction 79 3.2 ResearchObj ectives 80 3.3 ResearchMethodology 81 3.3.1 Differentiating methodology and methods 81 3.3.2 Theepistemological location of the study 82 3.3.3 Themethodology 86 3.4 ResearchMethods 89 3.5 Probes and Instruments: Revealing Student Knowledge 93 3.5.1 Concept mapping 93 3.5.1.1 Definition and application 93 3.5.1.2 Rationale for the use of concept maps 94 3.5.1.3 The evaluation of concept maps 95 3.5.1.4 Application of concept maps in the context of the research 98 3.5.2 The probing interview 98 3.5.2.1 Definition and application 98 3.5.2.2 Selection, rationale, and justification for use of different types of interview 99 3.5.2.3 Issues of trustworthiness 101 3.5.2.4 Application of interviews in the context of the research 102 3.6 Schedule and Process: Stages One, Two, andThree 103 3.6.1 Schedule and process of Stage One: Establishing the principles for the development of post-visit activities 103 3.6.2 Schedule and process of Stage Two: Pilot study of methods, data gathering, and data analysis strategies 104 3.6.2.1 Scheduling 104 3.6.2.2 Concept mapping procedures 105 3.6.2.3 Interviewing procedures 107 3.6.2.4 Analysis procedures 108 3.6.3 Schedule and process of Stage Three: Interpretation of students' construction of knowledge from a visit to the Sciencentre and subsequent completion of post-visit activities 109 3.7 Context andParticipants of the Main Study 112 3.7.1 The school and teacher 112 3.7.2 The students 114 3.7.3 The Sciencentre 115 3.8 Interventions fo r the Main Study 118
viii 3.8.1 Naturalistic interventions 118 3.8.1.1 Museum pre-orientation 118 3.8.1.2 Field trip visit to the Sciencentre 119 3.8.l.3 Field trip de-briefing 120 3.8.1.4 The post-visit activities 120 3.8.2 Non-naturalistic interventions 121 3.8.2.1 Phase A interventions 121 3.8.2.2 Phase B interventions 123 3.8.2.3 Phase C interventions 124
3.9 Data Collection Techniques and Analysis fo r the Main Study 125 3.9.1 Probing studentknowledge 126 3.9.2 Representing student knowledge - CPI, RLE, and RGCM 127 3.9.2.1 Concept profileinventory (CPI) 127 3.9.2.2 Related learning experience inventory (RLE) 130 3.9.2.3 Researcher-generated concept map (RGCM) 131 3.10 Limitations andResearch Issues 133 3 .10.1 Limitations 13 3 3.10.1.1 Duration of data collection 134 3.10.1.2 Number of participants 134 3.10.1.3 Sensitisation 134 3.10.1.4 Contextual transferability 135 3.10.2 Ethics 135 3.10.2.1 Parental and departmentalpermission 135 3.10.2.2 Equity of experience 136 3.10.2.3 Conservation of alternate understandings 136 3.12 Summary 137
Chapter 4: Outcomes and Conclusions of Stages One and Two 139 4.1 Introduction 139 4.2 Stage One: Principles fo r Development of Post-Visit Activities 139 4.2.1 Background 13 9 4.2.2 Procedure 140 4.2.3 Outcomes and principlesfor development 141 4.2.3.1 Principle 1 142 4.2.3.2 Principle 2 144 4.2.3.3 Principle 3 145 4.2.3.4 Principle 4 147 4.2.4 Conclusions and implications of stage one 147 4.3 Stage Two: Pilot study: Data Gathering andData Analysis Techniques 148 4.3.1 Background 148 4.3.2 Objectives 148 4.3.3 Participants in the study 149 4.3.4 Procedure 150 4.3.5 Pilot study case studies - Devin, Nevill, and Kathy 151 4.3.5.1 Devin 151 4.3.5.2 Nevill 158 4.3.5.3 Kathy 164 4.3.6 Outcomes of Stage Two 170 4.3.6.1 Effectiveness of the methods 170 4.3.6.2 Student concept mapping abilities 174 4.3.6.3 Student knowledge construction 175 4.4 Summary 176
ix Chapter 5: Overview, Analysis, and Discussion of Group Data 177 5.1 Introduction 177 5.2 Representing the Data 178 5.3 Pre-Visit Phase (phaseA) 180 5.3.1 Properties of magnets: Phase A 180 5.3.2 Earth's magnetic field, compasses, andapplication of magnets: Phase A 184 5 .3.3 Properties of electricity: Phase A 186 5.3.4 Types of electricity, electricity production, and applications of electricity: Phase A 190 5.3.5 Discussion: Phase A 193 5.4 Post-Visit Phase (phaseB) 195 5.4.1 Properties of magnets: Phase B 197 5.4.2 Earth's magnetic field, compasses, and application of magnets: Phase B 201 5.4.3 Properties of electricity: Phase B 204 5.4.4 Types of electricity, electricity production, and applications of electricity: Phase B 207 5.4.5 Discussion: Phase B 210 5.5 Post-ActivityPhase (phase C) 212 5.5.1 Properties of magnets: Phase C 213 5.5.2 Earth's magnetic field, compasses, and application of magnets: Phase C 217 5.5.3 Properties of electricity: Phase C 219 5.5.4 Types of electricity, electricity production, and applications of electricity: Phase C 222 5.5.5 Discussion: Phase C 226 5.6 Summary 228
Chapter 6: Case Studies of Knowledge Constructors 229 6.1 Introduction 229 6.2 The Case Study of Andrew 231 6.2.1 Andrew's background and characteristics 231 6.2.2 Andrew's pre-visit knowledge and understandings 233 6.2.2.1 Andrew's initialunderstanding of magnets and magnetism 233 6.2.2.2 Andrew's initialunderstandings of electricity 235 6.2.3 Andrew's post-visit knowledge and understandings 238 6.2.3.1 The emergence of pre-existing concepts 238 6.2.3.2 Subtle changes in knowledge and understanding: Recontexualisation 240 6.2.3.3 Distinct changes in knowledge and understanding: Progressive differentiation 240 6.2.3.4 Developmentof personal theories about electricity 243 6.2.4 Andrew's post-activity knowledge and understandings 246 6.2.4.1 Further examples of progressive differentiation: Personal theorybuilding 246 6.2.4.2 Development of links between the concepts of electricity and magnetism 248 6.2.4.3 Knowledge transformation from the PVA experiences 249 6.2.5 Summary of Andrew' s knowledge construction 251
6.3 The Case Study ofJosie 253 6.3.1 Josie's background and characteristics 253 6.3.2 Josie's pre-visit knowledge and understandings 255
x 6.3.2.1 Josie's initialunderstandings of magnets and magnetism 255 6.3.2.2 Josie's initial understandings of electricity 257 6.3.3 Josie's post-visit knowledge and understandings 258 6.3.3.1 Differentiation of knowledge and understanding of the properties ofmagneffi 260 6.3.3.2 Developing understandings of the production of electricity: Progressive differentiation of ideas 261 6.3.3.3 The addition of declarative understandings 262 6.6.3.4 Emergence of previously held concepts 263 6.3.4 Josie's post-activity knowledge and understandings 265 6.3.4.1 Disassociation of a prior construction 265 6.3.4.2 Weakening of conceptual links: Tentative signs of disassociation 267 6.3.4.3 Josie's understanding of the induction PVA: Weak restructuring of knowledge 268 6.3.5 Summary of Josie's knowledge construction 270
6.4 The Case Study of Roger 273 6.4.1 Roger's background and characteristics 273 6.4.2 Roger's pre-visit knowledge and understandings 274 6.4.2.1 Roger's initialunderstandings of magnets and magnetism 274 6.4.2.2 Roger's initialunderstandings of electricity 277 6.4.3 Roger's Post-Visit Knowledge and Understandings 280 6.4.3.1 Addition and progressive differentiation of ideas: Roger's "Magnet's attract electrons" model 280 6.4.3.2 Further examples of addition and progressive differentiation: Roger's understanding of static electricity 281 6.4.3.3 The production of electricity: Roger's "touching electrons" model 282 6.4.3.4 Subtle changes in the quality of understandings of the induction process 283 6.4.4 Roger's post-activity knowledge and understandings 284 6.4.4.1 The developing associations of heat, magnetism, and electricity: Personal theorybuilding 286 6.4.4.2 Electricity production: Further progressive differentiation of ideas 289 6.4.4.3 Propertiesof electricity: Late recontextualisation and emergence 291 6.4.5 Summary of Roger's knowledge construction 294
6.5 The Case Study of Hazel 295 6.5.1 Hazel's background and characteristics 295 6.5.2 Hazel's pre-visit knowledge and understandings 295 6.5.2.1 Hazel's initialunderstandings of magneffi and magnetism 297 6.5.2.2 Hazel'sinitial understandings of electricity 298 6.5.3 Hazel'spost-visit knowledge and understandings 302 6.5.3.1 Subtle changes in knowledge: Emergence, recontextualisation, and addition 302 6.5.3.2 Development understandings of the properties of electricity 303 6.5.4 Hazel'spost-activity knowledge and understandings 306 6.5.4.1 Developing understandings of the production of electricity 308 6.5.4.2 Developing understandings of the production of magnetism from electricity 311 6.5.5 Summary Hazel's knowledge construction 311
6.6 The Case Study ofHeidi 314 6.6.1 Heidi' s background and characteristics 314
xi 6.6.2 Heidi's pre-visit knowledge and understandings 315 6.6.2.1 Heidi's initial understandings of magnets and magnetism 315 6.6.2.1 Heidi's initial understandings of electricity 317 6.6.3 Heidi's post-visit knowledge and understandings 320 6.6.3.1 Personal theory of magnetic attraction and repulsion: Emergence of understandings 320 6.6.3.2 Heidi's understandings of electric motors: Progressive differentiation of ideas 322 6.6.3.3 Heidi's friction makeselectricity model recontextualised 323 6.6.4 Heidi's post-activity knowledge and understandings 325 6.6.4.1 Heidi's theory of induction: Application and recontextualisation of personaltheory 327 6.6.4.2. Personal theory of magnetism and gravity: Emergence of understandings 329 6.6.5 Summary of Heidi's knowledge construction 330 6.7 Summary 332
Chapter 7: Conclusions and Implications 335 7.1 Introduction 335 7.2 Knowledge and Understandings Emergent from Sciencentre and PVA Experiences 336 7.3 Knowledge Construction: The Processes of Building Understandings 339 7.3.1 Themultiple processes of knowledge construction 340 7.3.1.1 Emergence and addition 340 7.3.1.2 Progressive differentiation 341 7.3.1.3 Recontextualisation 341 7.3.1.4 Disassociation and weakening of conceptual connections 342 7.3.1.5 Merging 342 7.3 .1.6 Development of personal theories 342 7.3.2 The non-discrete, concurrent character of knowledge construction 343 7.3.3 The unique and individual nature of knowledge construction 343 7.3.3.1 The unique sets of concepts students possessed and developed 344 7.3.3.2 The unique set of interconnections between students' understandings 344 7.3.3.3 The unique set and sequence of knowledge constructing processes 345 7.3.4 The gradual, incremental, and assimilative nature knowledge construction 345 7.3.5 The development of new understanding in the light of prior knowledge 346 7.3.6 The idiosyncratic nature of knowledge construction 346 7.4 The Effectof Museum and PVA-based Experiences on Learning 347 7.5 Development ofPVAs 348 7.5.1 Review of the principles for the development of PVAs 349 7.5.1.1 Review of Principle 1 349 7.5.1.2 Review of Principle 2 350 7.5.1.3 Review of Principle 3 351 7.5.1.4 Reviewof Principle 4 352 7.6 Significancefo r Educators andResearchers 352
xii 7.6.1 The significance for teachers and museum educators 352 7.6.2 Thesignificance for researchers 355 7.7 Areasfo r FutureResearch 356 7.8 Summary 358
References 361 Appendices 387
xiii List of Tables
Table 3.1 - Schedule fo r Piloting Concept Mapping Activities, Interview Protocol, andMethods of Analysis. 105 Table 3.2 - Step by Step Instructions on the Process of Concept Mapping. 106 Table 3.3 - InterviewProtocol: Format and Guide Questions - Pilot Study. 108 Table 3.4 - Schedule of Interventions and Student Experiences for the Main Study. 110 Table 3.5 - Interview Protocol: Format and Guide Questions - Pre-visit Phase (phaseA). 123 Table 3.6 - Interview Protocol: Format and Guide Questions - Post-visit Phase (phaseB). 124 Table 3.7 - Interview Protocol: Format and Guide Questions - Post-activity Phase (phaseC). 125 Table 4.1 - Concept Profile Inventory & Related Learning Experience for Devin. 154 Table 4.2 - Concept Profile Inventory & Related Learning Experience for Nevill. 161 Table 4.3 - Concept Profile Inventory & Related Learning Experience for Kathy. 166 Table 5.1 - Concept ProfileInventory - Students' Pre-visit Understanding of the Properties of Magnets. 182 Table 5.2 - Concept ProfileInventory - Students' Pre-Visit Understandings of Earth's Magnetic Field, Compasses, and Applications of Magnets. 185 Table 5.3 - Concept ProfileInventory - Students' Pre-Visit understandings of Properties of Electricity. 188 Table 5.4 - Concept ProfileInventory - Students' Pre-Visit Understandings of the Types of Electricity, Electricity Production, and Applications of Electricity. 191 Table 5.5 - Summaryof Student Knowledge Types Interpretedfrom Phase A. 193 Table 5.6 - Concept ProfileInventory - Students' Post-visit Understanding of the Properties of Magnets. 200 Table 5.7 - Concept ProfileInventory - Students' Post-Visit Understandings of Earth's Magnetic Field, Compasses, and Applications of Magnets. 203 Table 5.8 - Concept Profile Inventory - Students' Post-Visit understandings of Properties of Electricity. 206 Table 5.9 - Concept Profile Inventory - Students' Post-Visit Understandings of the Types of Electricity, Electricity Production, and Applications of Electricity. 209 Table 5.10 - Summary of Student Knowledge Types Interpreted fr om Phase B. 211 Table 5.11 - Concept ProfileInventory - Students' Post-Activity Understanding of the Properties of Magnets. 216 Table 5.12 - Concept ProfileInventory - Students' Post-Activity Understandings of Earth's Magnetic Field, Compasses, and Applications of Magnets. 219
xiv Table 5.13 - Concept ProfileInventory - Students' Post-Activity Understandings of Properties of Electricity. 221 Table 5.14 - Concept ProfileInventory - Students' Post-Activity Understandings of the Types of Electricity, Electricity Production, andApplica tions of Electricity. 224 Table 5.15 - Summaryof Student Knowledge Types Interpreted from Phase C. 226
xv List of Figures
Figure 2.1 - Knowledge substructure. 34 Figure 2.2 - Addition. 35 Figure 2.3 - Reorganisation. 35 Figure 2.4 - Disassociation. 35 Figure 2.5 - Merging. 36 Figure 2.6 - Interactive experiencemodel. 43 Figure 3.1a - Epistemological location of the study - Relationship between situatedlearning paradigm and constructivist paradigm. 85 Figure 3.1b - Epistemological location ofthe study - View of Figure 3.1a through a human constructivist lens. 85 Figure 3.2 - The inter-relationships between Stages One, Two, and Three 89 Figure 3.3 - The Queensland Sciencentre schematic floorplan. 116 Figure 3.4 - Floor plan of galleries two and three ofthe Sciencentre. 119 Figure 3.5 - Sample of researcher-generated concept map showing interconnectednature of concepts. 132 Figure 4.1a - Devin's hand drawn concept map of his understands of magnetism. 153 Figure 4.1b - Devin's concept map redrawn by the researcher. 153 Figure 4.2a - Nevill'shand drawn concept map of his understands of magnetism. 159 Figure 4.2b - Nevill's concept map redrawnby the researcher. 160 Figure 4.3a - Kathy's handdrawn concept map of his understands of magnetism. 165 Figure 4.3b - Kathy's concept map redrawn by the researcher. 165 Figure 6.1 - Andrew's ePI andknowledge transformation exemplars. 232 Figure 6.2 - Andrew's pre-visit researcher-generated concept map. 237 Figure 6.3 - Andrew's post-visit researcher-generated concept map. 245 Figure 6.4 - Andrew's post-activity researcher-generated concept map. 250 Figure 6.5 - Josie's ePI andknowledge transformation exemplars. 254 Figure 6.6 - Josie's pre-visit researcher-generated concept map. 259 Figure 6.7 - Josie's post-visit researcher-generated concept map. 264 Figure 6.8 - Josie's post-activity researcher-generated concept map. 271 Figure 6.9 - Roger's ePI andknowledge transformation exemplars. 275 Figure 6.10 - Roger's pre-visit researcher-generated concept map. 279 Figure 6.11 - Roger's post-visit researcher-generated concept map. 285 Figure 6.12 - Roger's post-activity researcher-generated concept map. 293 Figure 6.13 - Hazel's ePI andknowledge transformation exemplars. 296 Figure 6.14 - Hazel'spre-visit researcher-generated concept map. 301 Figure 6.15 - Hazel'spo st-visit researcher-generated concept map. 307 Figure 6.16 - Hazel'spos t-activity researcher-generated concept map. 312 Figure 6.17 - Heidi's ePI andknow ledge transformation exemplars. 316 Figure 6.18 - Heidi's pre-visit researcher-generated concept map. 319 Figure 6.19 - Heidi's post-visit researcher-generated concept map. 326 Figure 6.20 - Heidi's post-activityresearcher-generated concept map. 331
xvi List of Appendices
Appendix A: Student Hand-out: Practice Exercise: Making a Mind Map. 387 Appendix B: Student Hand-out: Making a Mind Map About Magnetism. 388 Appendix C: Student Hand-out: Making a Mind Map About Magnetism and Electricity: Main Study. 389 Appendix D: Samples of Post-visit Activities Developed at RFSC fo r the Signals Exhibition. 390 Appendix E: Post-visit Activities fo r Stage Three, Phase Three, Facilitator Instructions. 393 Appendix F: Post-visit Activities fo r Stage Three, Phase Three: Part One, Student Hand-out. 394 Post-visit Activities fo r Stage Three, Phase Three: Part Two, Student Hand-out. 396 Appendix G: Target Exhibits - Descriptions and Concepts Portrayed in the Electricity and Magnetism Exhibits at the Sciencentre. 498 Other Exhibits. 400 Appendix H: Structure of Database fo r Concept ProfileInventory, Related Learning Experience Inventory, and Researcher-Generated Concept Maps. 401
xvii List of Abbreviations
Concept profileinventory (CPI) Personal theory building (PTB) Post-visit activity (PV A) Progressive differentiation (PD) Related learning experience (RLE) Researcher-generated concept map (RGCM) Reuben Fleet Science Center (RFSC)
xviii Declaration
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a degree or diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously submitted or written by another person except where due reference is made. I undertake to retain the original collected data on which the thesis is based fo r a minimum of five years, in accordance with University Ethics Guidelines.
Signed: ______Date: September 1 S\ 1999
xix Acknowledgements
I wish to acknowledge the tremendous support and assistance of my principal supervisor NProfKeith Lucas and associate supervisors, Dr lan Ginns and Dr Lynn Dierking, and the support of my friends and family. In addition, I wish to thank my proofreader, Frank Hyam, the staffs of the Queensland Sciencentre and Reuben Fleet Science Center, the students and staff of the school, and in particular the class teacher fo r their assistance and support of this study.
xx The fo llowing publications have resulted from the research described in this thesis:
Publications:
Anderson, D., Lucas, KB., Ginns, I. S., Dierking, L.D. (1999). Knowledge construction: Science museum and post-visit activity experience. In S. Stocklmayer and T. Hardy (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning in
Informal Contexts (pp. 124-135). Canberra, ACT: National Science and Technology Centre.
Anderson, D., Lucas, KB., Ginns, I., & Dierking, L.D. (Submitted). Development of knowledge about electricity and magnetism during a visit to a science museum and related post-visit activity. Science Education.
Conference Presentations:
Anderson, D., Lucas, KB., Ginns, I., & Dierking, L.D. (1997, April). Development of knowledge about electricity and magnetism during a visit to a science museum and related post-visit activity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association fo r Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.
Anderson, D., Lucas, KB., Ginns, I., & Dierking, L.D. (1998, August). Knowledge construction: Science museum and post-visit activity experiences. Paper presented at the Learning Science in Informal ContextsCo nference, Questacon - The National Science and Technology Centre, Canberra, ACT.
Anderson, D., Lucas, KB., & Ginns, I. (1999, March). Theoretical perspectives on learning in an informal setting. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association fo r Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
xxi
Chapter One
Introduction
1.1 Background
Millions of people throughout the world visit informal learning facilities such as zoos, aquariums, museums, and science centres for the purpose of a school field trip or recreation. Despite the popularity of these settings, research investigating the impact of the experiences that visitors have in such facilities is limited, and certainly minimal when compared to the research undertaken in formal education contexts. Nevertheless, a number of studies conducted in recent years provide substantial evidence of the impact of museum-based experiences on visitors to such settings. Broadly speaking, these can be divided into studies which examine visitor behaviour, visitor attitude and motivation, and visitor learning and cognition. Studies which have investigated visitor behaviour in informal settings have generally concluded that visitors behave and respond to their museum surroundings in different ways depending on their social context (Cone & Kendall, 1980; Diamond, 1980, 1986; Dierking, 1989, 1994, 1996a, 1996b; Hilke & Balling, 1985; Falk 1983; Falk, Balling, Dierking, & Dreblow, 1985; Gallagher & Snow-Dockser, 1987; Laetsch, Diamond, Gottfried, & Rosenfeld, 1980; McManus, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1992; Rosnefeld, 1980; Taylor, 1986). Several studies have demonstrated that museum experiences have been shown to help visitors to cultivate positive attitudes and motivation towards learning about topics which were the subject of those experiences (Finson & Enochs, 1987; Flexer & Borun, 1984; Orion & Hofstein, 1994; Stronck, 1983). Studies relating to cognition and learning resulting from museum experiences have had considerably less attention. However, a number of studies do support the premise that museum experiences positively influence visitors' learning in this domain (Boram & Marek, 1991; Feher, 1990; Feher & Rice, 1985; Folkomer, 1981; Beiers & McRobbie, 1992; Stronck, 1983; Wright, 1980).
1 Absent from literature of museum studies and learning are examples of research on the processes by which visitors construct knowledge and develop understandings resulting from their museum-based experiences. Understandings and assumptions of such processes have, for the most part, been extrapolated from research undertaken in formal learning contexts. Such extrapolations must be taken with caution, since the factors influencing learning in informal contexts are in many ways quite different from those of the formal context (Anderson, 1994; Wellington, 1990). The differing influencingfac tors may be attributed to the milieu of such settings, which are characteristically informal, free choice, non-competitive, non evaluative, recreational, and voluntary in nature (Anderson, 1994; Falk, Koran, & Dierking, 1986; Koran & Dierking-Shafer, 1981; McManus, 1992; Miller, 1983; Thier & Linn, 1975; Wellington, 1990). Furthermore, the physical and social settings of museums may differ from formal contexts in other ways. For example, such settings are quite often rich in visual, auditory and kinesthetic stimuli which heighten the experiences of visitors. In addition, they also often attempt to provide and encourage opportunities for social interaction at more heightened levels compared with formal settings. In many ways, the attributes described here paint the informal learning environment to be the antithesis of formal learning environments such as school classrooms or university lecture theatres. Arguably, informal settings have the potential to provide opportunities for these aforementioned factors to interact in such a way as to provide highly salient learning experiences for the individual. If this is so, then the examination of the processes of knowledge construction may be fruitfully studied in such settings. Not only is research into the processes of knowledge construction resulting from museum experiences limited, but also research into learning during the post-visit phase of fieldtrip s, and in particular, the impact of post-visit activities (PVAs), is negligible. Hence, there is little understanding of how knowledge is constructed, reconstructed, and consolidated by students through participation in such PV As, and to what extent students recall their visit to a museum or similar informal learning environment in doing so.
2 To understand the nature and processes of learning is extremely difficult. Part of the difficulty is that there are numerous factors which work in combination to effect the construction of knowledge in the human brain. Current theories recognise that knowledge is personal, structured, and constructed by the individual, frequently within a social setting. These theories of learning acknowledge that factors such as personal relevance, motivation, interest, attitude, belief, prior knowledge, social interaction, and factors within the physical context or environment are important variables in the process of knowledge construction. However, while many social scientists would agree that these factors are salient to the learning process, there is much speculation and conjecture about how these factors operate together to effect learning.
It is the aim of this study to examine the process of students' construction of knowledge as a result of their experiences during a period of weeks in which they participated in a pre-visit lesson, a field trip visit to a science museum, and a post visit lesson involving hands-on activities related to the science museum exhibition visited. Given the lack of research into the processes of knowledge construction in informal contexts, and the uncertain role which PV As play in the overall processes of learning, this is an important study for teachers, students, museum educators, and the science education community.
1.2 The Construction of Knowledge: An Epistemological Framework for Investigating Learning in Informal Settings
1.2.1 A framework for students' construction of knowledge
There are several epistemological vantage points from which to conceptualise the learning which occurs as a result of an individual's visit to a setting such as a science museum. This researcher's view of learning is one which is non-positivistic and asserts that knowledge is personally constructed through the individual's personal, social and physical contexts, and the interactions of these
3 contexts (Ceci & Roazzi, 1994; Falk & Dierking, 1992). Similar to many contemporary researchers holding a constructivist view of learning (Perkins, 1992; Pope & Gillbert, 1983; Tobin & McRobbie, 1996), the researcher does not subscribe to models of learning which assume that people are "filled" with knowledge in the absence of context. In fact, the researcher believes that it is not possible for any learning to occur in the absence of context, be it background knowledge, belief about, or attitude toward a given topic. Although it is believed by the researcher that experiences facilitated through interaction in a science centre, PV As, or a teacher facilitated experience, are able to produce changes in an individual's knowledge and understandings, such changes are not entirely predictable, quantifiable, or likely to result in a single outcome which can be fully defined prior to or as a result of such experience. Facilitators of learning aim to provide such experiences with the goal of transforming knowledge to generally desired outcomes, but these outcomes cannot be completely defined due to the complexity of factors influencinglearning and the fact that knowledge is personally constructed by individuals in light of their own personal prior experiences.
Among the diversity of learning theories postulated to attempt to explain how individuals come to know, understand, and form knowledge, the "constructivist view" has, in recent years, become the most widely accepted by science educators. However, the terms "constructivist" and "constructivism" mean different things to different people and have become inadequate to communicate specific views of how an individual learns and acquires knowledge (Matthews, 1997; Suchting, 1992).
Many forms of constructivism emphasise the central role of learning in terms of individuals constructing their own meanings for the information that they acquire.
In this view, the individual's understanding of a given topic develops as new elements are interlinked with existing patterns of connections between components of knowledge (Ausubel, 1968; Ausubel, Novak, & Hanesian, 1978; Gunstone & White, 1992; Valsiner & Leung, 1994). The pattern of knowledge which is formed is unique, and constitutes the individual's understanding of a given, broader,
4 societally or scientifically accepted body of knowledge. While an individual's cognitive structure related to a given topic may be similar to another's structure and understandings of the same domain, no two cognitive structures are identical, since they are constructed by the individuals themselves as a result of the experiences they have had. Constructivists call such patterns of connections "cognitive frameworks." Ausubel's (1968) description of meaningful learning, involving the central role of the individual in the assimilation of new knowledge elements into an existing cognitive framework, was an early expression of constructivism. Ausubel described an individual's cognitive structure or framework as being organised hierarchically, in the sense that new learning occurs through subsumption of new concepts under existing concepts. Ausubel maintained that knowledge is transformed through the combination of new information and prior knowledge. Thus, a component of
' existing knowledge A combined with new information a, transforms A into A'a . The process of interlinking new elements of knowledge in the cognitive framework may sometimes cause a rearrangement of the pattern as the individual considers the new knowledge in view of the old. This perspective of accommodation, as well as assimilation of new knowledge elements, had its genesis in Piaget's theories of conceptual change (Ginsburg & Opper, 1979; Inhelder & Piaget, 1958). In these researchers' views, assimilation increases knowledge by incorporating new information into the framework while preserving the cognitive structure. However, accommodation increases knowledge by modifying or reorganising the framework to account for new experience.
The preceding paragraph outlines a theoretical foundation for the ways in which individuals learn and construct knowledge. Inherent in this foundation is the relationship between the ability to learn, that is, incorporating new information into the cognitive structure, and the state of the pre-existing cognitive framework, that is, prior knowledge. If an individual has well-defined and interlinked cognitive frameworks, then, it could be argued that new information or elements of knowledge may be assimilated readily into those frameworks. Alternatively, poorly-developed or non-existing cognitive frameworks reduce the potential for successful integration
5 of new information. Hence, an individual's prior knowledge is a critical factor in his or her ability to assimilate new concepts (Aububel, 1968; Ausubel et aI., 1978; Driver & Bell, 1986; Glasersfeld, 1984; Mintzes & Wandersee, 1998; Mintzes, Wandersee, & Novak, 1997; Resnick, 1983; Roschelle, 1995). If one accepts the view that an individual's knowledge increases or is modifiedas new concepts are incorporated into the existing cognitive framework, and that the pre-existing framework is reorganised in order to accommodate these new or modified concepts, then it is evident that new or reframed knowledge emerges out of the foundations of the old knowledge. It is the assimilation and reorganisation of the individual's cognitive framework which results in new or refined understandings of a given body of knowledge, and the outcomes of these processes which are deemed to be "learning. "
The ways in which individuals construct knowledge are also shaped and influencedby the values, beliefs, and cultural context of the individuals (Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Lucas & Roth, 1996; Posner, 198 1). However, a deficiency of some of the views of constructivism is the over-emphasis on the sole role of the individual in the decontextualised formulation of knowledge. Such views tend to focus upon the individual in isolation, without sufficient attention to the contextual factors influencingthi s learning. O'Loughlin (1992) presents an argument for looking beyond "Piagetian constructivism" toward a more sociocultural model of learning - a model which acknowledges the highly contextualised nature of learning and is epistemologically located within the situated learning paradigm. Such a model acknowledges the importance of the social context in which the individual learns, in addition to the individual's prior knowledge, the physical context, and the activity(ies) being performed by the individual.
Lave (1988) also argues that it is inadequate to consider learning as the decontextualised formation of knowledge, rather than a dialectical interaction between individuals, their social and physical contexts, and the activity which they are attending. Lave's more holistic view of learning is highly applicable in the
6 informal learning settings of science museums and science centres. In museum contexts, the influencingroles of social and physical contexts are arguably heightened and more prominent than those of the more traditional, formal learning classroom setting. As previously mentioned, such informal settings are usually highly stimulating to the senses and provide an environment where visitors are free to attend to, and interact within their social and physical contexts, as a function of their own interests. In addition, individuals come to these settings with varying degrees of background knowledge and, consequently, different understandings about the bodies of knowledge conveyed in the exhibits. The social context of the individual is important to the resulting learning (Dierking, 1994, 1996b; Dierking & Falk, 1994; Diamond, 1986; Falk & Dierking, 1992; Laetsch et aI., 1980; McManus, 1987; O'Loughlin, 1992; Tuckey, 1992). Interactions between group members at the museum site may be beneficial or deleterious to the resulting learning of individual members. The effect of social and physical contexts on learning will be expanded upon in Section 2.5.
In summary, from a socio-cultural constructivist perspective, there appear to be several crucial factors which influence learning and knowledge construction and are highly pertinent to learners in informal settings. Specifically, these include the individual's existing knowledge, the social and cultural context within which learning occurs, and the physical context within which the individual interacts. Planned studies of learning in settings such as science museums should recognise the impact of the contexts in which individual and groups are situated in order to more meaningfully interpret the learning emergent from experiences visitors have in such settings. Section 3.3 more fully describes the epistemological location of this study in terms of the situated learning paradigm and constructivist views of knowledge construction.
7 1.2.2 A framework for the researcher's interpretation of knowledge
The previous section outlined, in brief, something of the epistemological stance that the researcher has taken in this study in terms of his beliefs about how people construct knowledge. In short, it is that knowledge is constructed through personal experiences contextualised in the light of the individual's existing knowledge, which was in turn constructed by past experiences. Thus, new or refined knowledge and understanding is constructed in the light of the old, or pre-existing knowledge.
This study has adopted an interpretivist methodology, modelled on that described by Erickson (1986) and elaborated in Section 3.3. The fact that this is an interpretivist study, begs the question: whose interpretation? Indeed, it is the case that an interpretation of anything is an explanation of events or occurrences as seen and explained by some individual(s). Individuals have their own constructions of the world and beliefs about how things are, which they have personally constructed through experience contextualised in light of their own existing knowledge, which was in turn constructed by past experiences. Thus one's interpretation of an event can also be argued to be a unique interpretation given that interpretation is taken through a uniquely formed set of beliefs and understandings of the world. To this end, the findings of this study are largely the interpretation of the researcher who has his own unique understandings and belief about the world, and in particular, science and learning. These interpretations are unique because the researcher has had a set of life experiences which no one else has had. These experiences have caused him to construct knowledge and a view of the world that is unique to him. In short, the researcher adheres to a relativist ontology: a view of the world which asserts that there exist multiple, socially constructed models of reality ungoverned by any natural laws, causal or otherwise, and one in which "truth" is definedas the best informed and most sophisticated construction on which there is consensus (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). In a real sense, the researcher is one of the primary instruments used in this study to understand students' construction of knowledge.
8 Having argued the uniqueness of the interpretations, it must also be conceded that many people in the science and social science fields have had similar life experiences through their formal education and the like, which have caused them to construct knowledge and views of the worId which would be very similar to those of the researcher. To the extent that readers of this thesis share significant experience and interpretation of science learning in a range of contexts, the data and outcomes of this research are likely to be of interest and relevance. Considerable attention has been paid to strategies for increasing the trustworthiness of the research, details of which are provided in Sections 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6.
1.3 The Researcher
As this study adopts an interpretivist approach, it is important that I, the researcher, declare something of my background and experience in science education, informal learning environments, and my history as a social science researcher. It is because of my background and experience that I have interpreted the data and findingsof this study in the way that I have. In a real sense, I have constructed meaning out of this study through the filters of my own knowledge and understandings, which include my personal views of science, informal learning environments, students, and my notions of constructivism.
My personal interest in science education probably commenced in earnest afterthe completion of my undergraduate studies, in 1988. My bachelor's degree focused principally on the discipline of physics. At that time I was working as a public relations officer for the Australian Government at the 1988 W orId Exposition in Brisbane, Australia. W orId fairs, as one would appreciate, are tremendously large informal, free-choice settings where visitors encounter a wide diversity of experiences and, undoubtedly, learn and develop new understandings of countries in light of the prevailing theme of exposition. In 1988, the exposition's theme happened to be "Leisure in the Age of Technology," and so included numerous themes of science and technology among its pavilions, theatres, and exhibitions. At
9 the conclusion of the fair, I moved to Vancouver, Canada, where I took up a one year appointment at H.R. McMillan Planetarium and Gordon Southam Observatory. My duties there included conducting planetarium shows for the general public and K- 12 school groups, conducting nightly public interpretation of the sky in the Provincial Parks of British Columbia, and facilitating public observation evenings at the observatory. My experiences there were a strong impetus for my embarking on a career as a social science researcher, focusing on science education. Upon reflection, it was these two career appointments that lead me to question and wonder what it was about free-choice settings which attracted people to visit them, and furthermore, what were the impacts that these contexts had on people.
Upon my return to Australia in 1990, I commenced my pre-service teacher education program, with the aim of becoming a high school science teacher. My goal, even at the commencement of the program, was to spend three years teaching in a high school context and then gain employment with a progressive science centre. I viewed this plan as one which would provide me with both experience and credibility in an endeavour to gain greater understanding of how people learn. At the completion of the course, I gained employment with a large metropolitan high school, and over the course of three years completed a Master of Education degree in a part-time capacity. In my initial review of the relevant literature in the fieldof informal learning in preparation for my masters research, I became highly intrigued by the notion that novelty could differentially affect students' on-task behaviour. Such notions, which related to novelty and curiosity, had their genesis in the 1950s and 1960s in the work of Bedyne (Bedyne, 1950, 1960). Bedyne's framework was later employed in a series of studies by Falk and Balling in the 1970s (Falk, 1983; Falk & Balling, 1980, 1982; Falk, Martin, & Balling, 1978). My masters research adopted a quasi-experimental design to determine whether a program designed to orientate students to the physical setting of a science centre could serve to reduce novelty and improve the cognitive impact of a free-choice visit to such a setting. The findingsof this research suggested that students' learning of scientificcontent portrayed in science centre exhibits could indeed be improved through such a
10 program. To this end, the novelty-reducing intervention was shown to reduce students' need to focus on setting-orientation and allowed them to focus more upon the institutionally-intended learning experiences (Anderson, 1994; Anderson & Lucas, 1997). This study's traditional quantitative design was fruitful in providing insight into some, previously unappreciated, ways of improving the impact of field trips on student learning, but did not shed much light on the nature of the learning which was evidently taking place from their experiences. It was also evident, from a review of the literature at end of 1994, that there were very few studies which considered the nature and processes of student learning in informal settings. Given my long-held interest in understanding how people learn, and the apparent lack of research about the processes of learning in informal contexts, this seemed a fertile area in which I could conduct future research. In considering the complicated processes of learning resulting from experiences in informal settings, it also became evident that more qualitative research methods would be required with which to gain understanding. To this end, I underwent a large change in my own epistemology of learning which was previously heavily influencedby a positivist, quantitative paradigm derived from my physics background.
In 1995, I took leave from my position as a high school teacher, and commenced my doctoral program. In the early stages of the program I spent three months working at the Reuben Fleet Science Center (RFSC), in San Diego, California. Here, my attention was focused on developing PVAs to complement the newly-completed Signals Exhibition. My goal was to gain an appreciation of the processes of developing educationally effective PV As from visitors' science centre experiences and to incorporate these experiences into this larger study, investigating processes by which students learn from science centre and related classroom based experiences. My experiences at the RFSC have thus formed an important part of my research and have contributed to my interpretation of data.
At the end of 1995, I accepted an appointment as a Senior Research Associate with the Institute for Learning Innovation (the Institute), based in
11 Annapolis, Maryland, under the directorship of Dr. John Falk, and Associate Director Dr. Lynn Dierking. Here, my duties focused on evaluation and research of exhibitions and programs in museum and science centre settings. I designed and implemented research and evaluation activities for such institutions as the National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.e.; Orlando Science Center, Orlando, Florida; Louisville Science Center, Louisville, Kentucky; New York Hall of Science, New York, New York; Carnegie Science Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and a wide variety of like institutions in North America (Anderson, Hilke, Kramer, Abrams, & Dierking, 1997; Anderson & Holland, 1997; Anderson, Garay, Roman, & Fong, 1997; Anderson, 1996; Dierking, Anderson, Abrams, Kramer, & Gronborg, 1998). The fact that my day-to-day duties with the Institute were so congruent with my doctoral work has helped enhance my understandings of visitor behaviour and the impact that museum experiences have on people. Specifically, they helped me develop an appreciation that visitors' perceptions of museum experiences are highly individual and influencedby their own past experiences and prior knowledge. It is these experiences, combined with experience gained through my previous employment position and formal academic research, which have shaped my views of constructivism and ontology detailed in Section 1.2. In short, I view learning in a non-positivistic light and assert that knowledge is constructed in ways that are idiosyncratic, progressive, integrative, dependent on prior knowledge, and not entirely predictable.
1.4 Research Objectives and Methodology
This study employed a qualitative methodology, using interpretive case studies, in order to investigate and understand the nature of students' construction of knowledge of electricity and magnetism concepts following a science centre visit and the subsequent participation in related classroom-based PV As. In order to gain a detailed understanding of these processes, interpretive strategies were used to study the changing knowledge states of 12 grade seven students. An interpretive research
12 strategy was employed because neither the process of knowledge construction, nor the details of the learning products, are well understood (Burns, 1994). These knowledge states were probed on three occasions: prior to a science centre experience, following the science centre visit and afterparticipation in classroom based PVAs. The principal methods of data collection were through student generated concept maps and semi-structured probing interviews. In addition, student behaviour was video-taped in the Queensland Sciencentre (the specific science centre used in this study) as students interacted with the exhibits and in the classroom while they participated in PVAs. Students' conversations were also audio-taped in the Sciencentre and in the classroom. Details of the methodology, methods, participants, and procedure are detailed in Chapter Three. The research objectives for the study are detailed as follows and are elaborated on in Section 3.2.
(A) to describe and interpret students' scientific knowledge and understandings of electricity and magnetism: i. prior to a visit to a science centre, ii. following a visit to a science centre, iii. following post-visit activities related to their science centre experiences.
(B) to describe and interpret the processes by which students constructed their scientificknowle dge and understandings of electricity and magnetism: i. prior to a visit to a science centre,
11. following a visit to a science centre,
111. following post-visit activities related to their science centre experiences
In order to achieve objectives (A) and (B) a necessary objective was to develop the principles for post-visit activity design, specifically:
(C) to develop a set of principles for the development of post-visit activities from a constructivist framework (Section 2.4) which could facilitate and enhance students' learning of science.
13 Upon completion of the study of students' learning the final objective was addressed, namely:
(D) to review and refine the set of principles for the development of post-visit activities in the light of the findings of the main study.
1.5 Summary of Interpretations
The study provides evidence that the exhibits and/or PV A experiences resulted in students constructing and reconstructing their personal knowledge of science concepts and principles represented in the science centre they visited. These constructions and reconstructions were developed sometimes towards the accepted scientific understanding and sometimes in different and surprising ways. Several issues seem to emerge prominently from the study. First, students' Sciencentre experiences resulted in them developing many rich and diverse concepts relating to the topics portrayed within the centre's exhibits and programs. While students' developing knowledge and understandings emergent from science centre experiences were frequently characterised by gradual and incremental changes, these changes proved to be powerful influences in the construction of subsequent understanding developed through the PV A experiences.
Second, it was evident that students had their knowledge in the domain of electricity and magnetism transformed in many ways not specifically intended by those who planned the exhibits and/or PV A experiences. Some transformations were small and seemingly not noteworthy and seem, to experienced facilitators, to be minor and not noteworthy. However, such small transformations have the strong potential to lead to changes in knowledge, understanding, and personal theory building in profound ways in subsequent experiences of students. In all 12 case studies under investigation in the main study, students experienced numerous small changes in their knowledge and understanding of electricity and magnetism. Many
14 of these changes were of a form which would probably not be detected by traditional classroom-based instruments typically used by teachers to assess student knowledge. Some changes were more evident following the Sciencentre visit, where students encountered a wide diversity of science-related experiences. These findings add further evidence to the fact the students visiting science centres and like facilities have experiences which change their knowledge and in ways consistent with accepted scientific understandings. Other transformations resulting from the science centre and PV A experiences are seemingly more consistent and substantive in light of the intended messages of the exhibits and PV A experience. Regardless, it appears that these transformations, whether intended, or unintended, ultimately were powerful influences on the knowledge which was later further constructed.
Third, it seems evident that prior knowledge and prior experiences were significant factors in the construction of each individual's knowledge. Prior life experiences, had demonstrable and significant effects on knowledge and understandings that were constructed subsequently from the Sciencentre and PVA experience. Furthermore, knowledge and understandings emergent from students' Sciencentre experiences were highly influential in the knowledge which was subsequently developed from students' PVA experiences. In this sense, knowledge construction was demonstrated to be a set of highly dynamic processes. Prior knowledge was seen to shape and influencethe character of subsequent knowledge, which in turn influenced and shaped the character of later developing knowledge.
Fourth, the character of knowledge construction processes were demonstrated to be detailed and complex. Knowledge and understanding was transformed in multiple ways through many processes which were regarded as being non-discrete and frequently occurring concurrently with one another. These processes were not only multiple, non-discrete, and concurrent, but also occurred successively across the phases of the study. Thus, there were identified knowledge construction processes within knowledge construction processes in the development of understandings throughout the study. The nature of students' knowledge and understandings was
15 highly unique in their conceptual character, their interconnection between concepts students held, and in the knowledge construction processes they used to develop their understandings. These combined unique attributes uniquely characterised individual students in the ways they built knowledge and understandings.
Finally, it seems that, despite the best intentions of exhibit designers and the planners of the PVAs to provide experiences which would help facilitate knowledge construction in ways which are consistent with the canons of science, in some instances the experiences, in fact, helped transform knowledge in both consistent and inconsistent ways. This point underscores for teachers, and staff of science museums and similar centres, the importance of planning pre- and PV As, not only to support the development of scientific conceptions, but also to detect and respond to alternative conceptions that may be produced or strengthened during a visit to an informal learning centre. These final points make it even more important that additional research be undertaken in the areas of knowledge construction and PVA.
1.6 Overview of Thesis
This thesis is divided into seven chapters. Chapter One has thus far introduced the problem being addressed by this study, the methodological approach, the epistemological beliefs and background of the researcher and a summary of the interpretations. Finally, a glossary is provided in Section 1.7. Chapter Two details a review of the relevant literature in the area of knowledge construction, the effect of context on learning, and PVA, culminating in a statement of the objectives of the present study and a brief discussion of the educational significance of the study. Chapter Three discusses the methodology, methods, and procedures employed in this research, described in three stages. Stage One deals with the process of developing the principles for PV As. Stage Two describes pilot studies which investigated the effectiveness of specific PV As and data-gathering strategies relating to students' construction of knowledge. Stage Three details the procedures of the
16 main study, investigating the process of knowledge construction. Chapter Four describes the results and conclusions of Stages One and Two of the research. Chapter Five is the first of two chapters which consider the data and findings of the main study - Stage Three. Here, an overview of the data is presented to describe the broad picture of the ways in which students constructed and reconstructed knowledge resulting from their experiences during a field trip visit to a science centre and their subsequent participation in classroom-based PV As. Chapter Six focuses on five case studies of knowledge construction and considers in detail the experiences and ways in which students' knowledge was transformed by experiences and, in some instance, how advanced theories and understandings developed. Finally, Chapter Seven relates the significantresearch finding of this study to the current bodies of knowledge in the area of learning in informal settings, and revisits the principles for development of PV As in light of the findings of the main study. Limitations of the study are identified and some recommendations for further research arising out of this study are presented.
1.7 Glossary
The following terms are used extensively throughout the thesis and are defined as follows.
ExhibitlExhibit Element: One stand-alone component of an exhibition which visitors to an informal learning environment, such as a science centre, can interact with, manipulate, or observe.
Exhibition: A series or group of exhibits which are grouped under a common unifying theme.
Experience: An event or series of events, in a particular context, which supply an individual with sensory information in ways which result in learning.
17 Informal Learning Environment: A physical setting in which an individual has greater autonomy and freedom to attend to, and learn from, stimuli than provided by the more formal setting of a school.
Learning: The process by which knowledge structures are built and transformed from one state to another. The processes of learninginclude :
Knowledge Construction: The processes by which an individual personally builds and
creates knowledge through experiences mediated by the social, physical and personal
contexts.
Knowledge Transformation: The transition of an individual's knowledge structure(s) from
one state to another through processes of reorganisation, addition, disassociation, merging,
and consolidation.
Museum: A broad generic term used to describe all institutions which display exhibitions for use, enjoyment, and education of visitors. Such institutions encompass: science, art,and natural history museums; zoos; aquaria; botanic gardens; field study centres and science centres.
Post-Visit Activity (PVA) : Classroom-based activity or exercise which is specifically designed to enhance learning about a given topic encountered or experienced in an informal learning environment.
Science Centre: An informal learning environment containing interactive exhibits and displays designed to provide experiences for visitors which aim to help them construct knowledge relating to the sciences.
Sciencentre: The science centre which was used as the specific informal learning environment for the purposes of this study.
Setting (Museum/Classroom): The location where the physical, social and personal contexts interact to create experiences for an individual.
18 Chapter Two
Review of the Literature
2.1 Introduction
This chapter reviews the literature relating to learning, knowledge construction, and museum studies which has given rise to the focus of this research. As discussed in Chapter One, the study has arisen out of the lack of understanding concerning the processes of learning and knowledge construction emerging from visitors' experiences in informal settings and subsequent related post-visit activity (PVA) experiences. In order to provide a further elaboration of where this study is philosophically situated (See Section 1.2), this chapter first considers the evolution of learning theories from the views of the functional psychologists through to the situated learning theorists, where this study is, in part, embedded. Second, the nature of knowledge, understanding, and learning, including theories of knowledge construction from a constructivist perspective, are reviewed. Third, a review of relevant studies of learning, both in the realms of formal and informal settings, is considered in the light of the developed discussion of theories of knowledge construction and learning. Finally, a review of PV A experiences arising from the museum studies literature demonstrates the need for the investigation of learning in this domain.
2.2 A Historical Perspective of Learning Paradigms
This century has seen paradigm shifts in cognitive psychology and, in particular, in the ways in which knowledge and learning are defined and understood
19 by theorists and practitioners. Contemporary theories of learning have changed and evolved in several ways from the late 1800s. In general terms, conceptions of learning have evolved from a transactional conception evident in functional psychology, to an environment-centred conception in behaviourism, to an organism centred conception in cognitivism, and more recently to a contextualised view, that of situated learning (Bredo, 1997; Case, 1991).
Functional psychology, which blossomed at the turn of the 20th century, was an attempt to integrate divisions between thinking and behaving, and individual and socio-cultural aspects of change which are deliberated in earnest among learning theorists even today. Proponents of functionalpsy chology such as Dewey (1916), James (1890/1950), and Mead (1910/1970) viewed learning as the interaction or transaction between the environment in which the organism 1 was situated and the organism itself. Both organism and environment are mutually affected, and influencechange in each other. Functionalists viewed learned habits of organisms not as matters of passive adaptation to fixedenvironments but as ways of changing environments (Bredo, 1997).
Behaviourism emerged from functionalism and empiricism in the decades following the 1920s. The paradigm adopted a positivist stance, possibly due to the fact that its proponents were attempting to legitimise it as a science at a time when the physical sciences had great prestige and credibility. One of its fundamental proponents, John Watson, was a student of both Dewey and Mead. Watson saw learning in functional terms, as an adjustment of an organism to meet a given situation. He did not view learning as occurring through conscious thought or insight, but rather, through a process of 'conditioning' and acting in response to the environment. Watson was responsible for the development of stimUlus-response theory, which asserted that the response of an organism could ultimately be predicted by the stimulus it received (Watson, 1924/1930). Another proponent of behaviourism, B.P. Skinner, accepted and built on many of the ideas of Watson.
1 The term organism was used to describe both animals and humans.
20 However, rather than rejecting the role of the mind in learning, Skinner sought to explain all mental behaviour in environmental terms (Skinner, 1974). Generally speaking, behaviourists viewed the individual as being passive while learning, and were of the view that information from the environment in which the learner was situated provided input which was directly transmitted to, and accumulated by the learner (Gilbert & Watts, 1983). These views emerged in what is called the "cultural transmissive" approach to teaching and learning (Perkins, 1992; Pope & Gillbert, 1983). Proponents of this approach viewed individuals as passive learners of the knowledge that they acquired. Individuals were seen as empty vessels into which knowledge could be transmitted. This view placed no emphasis on the student's own pre-existing knowledge, understanding, or the potential for the interaction of that knowledge and understanding with the new information which was received.
Cognitivism emerged in the 1950s and 1960s with the work of theorists such as Chomsky (1959) and Bruner (1960) who found deficiencywith the views of the behaviourists. Cognitivism reversed the behaviourist view to one which replaced external reinforcement contingencies and trial and error search behaviour with internal problem representations and simulated search, exploring the processes of cognition within the individuals themselves (Bredo, 1997). The structures and processes which behaviourists viewed as being situated within the environment, were "placed" inside the learner's mind in the views of the cognitivists. Furthermore, where behaviourists had aimed at predicting and controlling behaviour, the cognitivists aimed at changing knowledge representations to improve problem solving effectiveness. Thus the aims of learning shiftedfr om getting the correct answers to using the correct process. Piaget, although perhaps not strictly classified as a cognitivist, made several profound contributions to the realm of cognitive psychology. Of particular relevance to this discussion was the contribution of the central role of the individuals and their ability to assimilate and accommodate information, and the role of equilibration in the creation of knowledge (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958). Ausubel (1968), building on the ideas of Pia get and others, viewed learning which was meaningful to the individual as the assimilation of new
21 knowledge into an existing cognitive framework. Ausubel described an individual's cognitive structure or framework as being organised hierarchically, in the sense that new learning occurs through sUbsumption of new concepts under existing concepts. Ausubel maintained that knowledge is transformed through the combination of new information in the light of prior understandings. In this view, Piaget and Ausubel were pioneers in the appreciation of the importance of prior understandings to subsequent knowledge construction as part of the learning process, and will be the subject of further discussion in Section 2.4.2.
A further shift in thinking in the 1970s saw a move which in some ways revived the earlier notions of the functional psychologists, in so far as cognitivists had now started to reconsider the role of the environment on the learning processes of the individual, hence the emergence of situated learning theorists. Vygotsky (1978) argued that learning and higher mental functions developed through participation in social activities which were contextualised within a social history, thus the social context is critical to the learning process:
From the very firstday of the child's development, his activities acquire a meaning of their own in a system of social behaviour and, being directed towards a definite purpose, are refracted through the prism of the child's environment. The path from child to object passes through another person. The complete human structure is the product of a developmental process deeply rooted in the links between individual and social history. (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 30)
As discussed in Chapter One, Lave (1988) argued that it is inadequate to consider learning as the decontextualised formation of knowledge, rather than the dialectical interaction between individuals, within their social and physical contexts, and the activity to which they are attending.
In reviewing the historical aspects of the paradigm shifts overthi s last century, it is interesting to note the progression of change and the appreciation of the need to conceptualise learning as both the product and process of learners' interactions with their environment and their own understandings - a view which, in
22 part, revisits some of the ideas of the early functional psychologists. Since this study epistemologically and philosophically resides in the domain of constructivism, Section 2.3 considers the characteristics of the paradigm whose traditions sprout from the cognitivist and situated learning eras.
2.3 Variations of Constructivism
Staver (1998) views constructivism as falling essentially into two camps, namely, radical constructivism and social constructivism. Radical constructivism (Glasersfeld, 1995) is typified by several defining ontological and epistemological characteristics. First, knowledge is actively built up from within by a thinking individual. It is not passively received through the senses or by any form of communication as is typified by the "cultural transmissive" approach to teaching and learning. Second, knowledge does not exist independent of the individual who has built or constructed it. Third, social interactions between learners are central to the construction of knowledge by individuals. Fourth, the character of cognition is both functional and adaptive. Finally, the purpose of cognition is to serve the individual's organisation of his or her experiences of the environment in which the individual is situated, that is, the purpose of cognition is not the discovery of an objective ontological reality, but to make sense or meaning of hislher world.
Social constructivism (Driver, 1983; Gergen, 1995; Lave 1988; Vygotsky, 1978) centres on the study of making meaning and sense of the world through language. For social constructivists, knowledge is constructed and legitimised by means of social interchange between individuals. As with radical constructivism, there are some defining ontological and epistemological characteristics which distinguish social constructivism. First, social interdependence is the mechanism through which humans make meaning in language. It is by language that humans coordinate their activities and thus at least two individuals are required to make meaning understood by others. Second, within language, meanings are dependent upon the context in which the social interdependence is situated. Gergen (1995)
23 suggests that language lies within sociological and historical occurrences, and that local agreements about connections between language and referent are not necessarily generalisable to other contexts. Third, the purposes served by language are primarily communal, and are important in continuing and fostering relationships between individuals in social groups, and, like radical constructivism, social constructivism's main purpose does not lie in discovering an objective ontological reality.
Staver (1998), points out that both radical and social constructivism have much in common. They share the same view of learning, as individuals actively construct knowledge and make meaning for themselves. They both see social interactions between individuals as central to the construction of knowledge, and they see the character of cognition and a language used to express cognition as functional and adaptive. Staver further suggests that the primary difference between radical and social constructivism lies in their foci of study, which ultimately lead to substantive differences in direction and problems for study. In radical constructivism, the focus is cognition and the individual, while with social constructivism, the focus is the language and the group. The fundamental tenets of radical and social constructivism may hold true for a researcher, in much the same way that both the wave and particle views of the behaviour of light would hold true for a physicist. Both views hold saliency. Each view may be equally plausible in the context of a particular problem.
2.4 Theories of Knowledge Construction: Constructivist Views
Having outlined something of the evolution of learning theories in Section 2.2, and having described the key attributes of the constructivist paradigm in Section 2.3., the following section discusses in detail some theoretical perspectives of the nature of knowledge, understanding, learning (Section 2.4.1), and theories of the knowledge construction processes (Section 2.4.2).
24 2.4.1 Defining knowledge, understanding, and learning
In colloquial English, people, including social science researchers and educators use the terms "knowledge," "understanding," and "learning" as all encompassing terms to mean many things. In the domain of cognitive psychology, the terms have numerous definitions and meanings, depending on the practical and theoretical context in which they are used. The following sections provide a brief description and elaboration of the terms in order to clarify their meaning in the context of research which underpins the investigation described in the following chapters.
2.4.1.1 Kn owledge The term "knowledge" can be defined in a number of ways. Definitions such as, "the sum of what is known" or "the body of truths or facts accumulated by humankind in the course of time" (Macquarie Dictionary, 1997) provide an all encompassing view of knowledge. Some researchers have taken the perspective of describing knowledge as existing in theory-sized chunks, under which are subsumed a myriad of aspects of theory (McCloskey, 1983). Alternatively, knowledge can be viewed on a more elemental level as a component of the whole. Such a view could arguably be ascribed to Piaget, who viewed the mind as containing schemata, or to Ausubel, who viewed that part of greater understanding as knowledge elements. Hewson and Hewson (1983) describe knowledge in terms of conceptions which are considered to be composed of concepts, or units of information which are linked with one another. In general, constructivists are likely to employ the more elemental level view when attempting to describe "knowledge."
Another way of viewing knowledge is by content or subject domains into which it may be sorted in the human mind. For example, McDermott (1988) described students' knowledge in various content domains of physics. Other researchers have taken a more generic and holistic view of knowledge, such as diSessa (1988) who theorised knowledge in terms of "phenomenological primitives"
25 or "p-prims" - simple abstractions from common experiences. An example of a simple abstraction might be an individual noticing that objects fall downward due to gravitational force. diSessa viewed "p-prims" as knowledge elements which span across content domains of knowledge. For example, the Ohm's Law p-prim which describes a direct relationship between potential difference and current, and an inverse relationship between potential difference and resistance (V=IR), applies in much the same way as Newton's third law of motion (F=ma). Minstrell (1992) viewed knowledge in terms of both McDermott's and diSessa's ideas, describing knowledge as "facets," which are pieces of knowledge or strategies seemingly used by students in addressing a particular situation. Thus, Minstrell viewed knowledge in terms of content or subject specific elements, as well as more general strategies which cut across the subject specific domains.
A number of authors and researchers (Phye, 1992; Shiffrin & Dumais, 1981; Tennyson, 1989, 1992; Tennyson & Rasch, 1989; Wellington, 1990) have suggested that knowledge exists in various forms in human memory, specifically, "declarative knowledge," "procedural knowledge," and "contextual knowledge." Declarative knowledge implies an understanding and awareness of factual information and refers to "knowledge that." For example, most people would realise that milk left in the sun all day goes bad. Procedural knowledge refers to "knowing how" to employ concept rules, and principles in the service of a particular situation. For example, the longevity of milk can be improved in a number of ways, such as pasteurisation and refrigeration. Procedural knowledge is demonstrated when an individual can combine, incorporate, or assimilate declarative knowledge so that it can be used procedurally in a course of action. Contextual knowledge implies an understanding of "why," "when," and "where" to employ specific concepts, rules, and principles from the knowledge base (declarative and procedural knowledge); for example, understanding why milk goes bad when left in the sun. The selection process is determined by criteria such as values, beliefs, and situational appropriateness. Tennyson (1989) asserted that, whereas both declarative and procedural knowledge form the amount of information in the knowledge base, contextual knowledge
26 fashions its organisation and accessibility. Contextual knowledge epitomises the active construction of knowledge drawing on, and processing declarative and procedural knowledge.
Ultimately, there are many ways to view and conceptualise knowledge, each having its own value depending upon the context in which it is used and questions for which researchers are seeking answers. The researcher argues in the following section, that the ideas which lie behind the notions of declarative, procedural, and contextual knowledge can also be viewed as forms of understanding from a particular context.
2.4.1.2 Understanding The terms "knowledge" and "understanding" are frequently used synonymously throughout the learning, education, and cognitive psychology literature. From the macro-perspective, the terms are often used to express the entirety of an individual's conceptions, as in statements such as: "a person's knowledge," or "a person's understanding." However, if the elemental level perspective of knowledge, described earlier in Section 2.4.1.1, is accepted, then the definition of "understanding" cannot be accepted as synonymous with that of "knowledge." Among the many definitions of "understanding" supplied by the Macquarie Dictionary (1997), distinctions such as "to perceive the meaning of; grasp the idea of; comprehend," "to interpret, or assign meaning to; take to mean," and "to comprehend by knowing the meaning of the words employed, as a language," in part supply the significance of the term as used in this study. It could be argued that understanding goes beyond knowledge, in that it is through knowledge that understanding is attained. Hence, the terms are not mutually exclusive, but overlap each other and have substantial commonality in their meaning.
Numerous cognitivists (e.g., Ausubel, 1968; Ausubel et al.,1978; Carey, 1987; Hewson & Hewson, 1983; Mintzes, Wandersee, & Novak, 1997; Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982; Rumelhart & Norman, 1978) view the nature of
27 knowledge as being structured and interconnected. Each knowledge element does not exist in isolation but rather is connected to other knowledge elements, and it is through these interconnections that understanding is constructed by the individual. It is the nature of an individual's knowledge elements and the interconnections which exist between them that definesunderstanding for that individual. Ausubel (1968) describes these interconnected knowledge elements as forming cognitive structure, since elements and connections are not randomly constructed but organised. In this view, the level or degree of understanding an individual possesses can be conceptualised in a number of ways. Factors such as the number of knowledge elements and the degree to which knowledge elements are interconnected with each other are likely to have a bearing on the understanding which an individual constructs. Furthermore, the degree to which knowledge elements or groups of knowledge elements are able to be differentiated, that is, seen as different by the individual, will also have a bearing on the understandings the individual possesses. Mintzes et aI., (1997) assert that
successful science learners develop elaborate, strongly hierarchical, well differentiated, and highly integrated frameworks of related concepts as they construct meaning. (p. 414)
Furthermore, they suggest that the ability of an individual to reason well in the natural sciences is constrained largely by the structure of domain-specificknowledge in the discipline.
Understanding can be conceptualised on differing levels; for example, on the content or subject level as in McDermott's (1988) study relating to students' understanding of physics. Alternatively, one might conceptualise understanding at the level of declarative, procedural, or contextual knowledge. From Tennyson's (1989) perspective, contextual knowledge is formed from the organisation and accessibility of declarative and procedural knowledge. Itcan be argued that this type of knowledge is more appropriately defined as understanding. What understanding appears to have that knowledge does not is a sense of quality, that is, strength diversity, appropriateness of the connection between concepts.
28 2.4.1.3 Learning From the discussion thus far, it has been demonstrated that the nature of an individual's knowledge is that it is structured, organised and interconnected, and it is this organisation which provides understanding for the individual. The processes which give rise to knowledge and understanding are those of learning. There are a wide variety of operational definitions which describe learning and vary according to paradigm and context. Colloquially, the term "learning" is defined as "the act or process of acquiring knowledge or skill" (Macquarie Dictionary, 1997). Woolfolk (1987) describes learning, from a socio-cognitive view, as "an internal change in a person through formation of new mental associations or the potential for new responses that comes about as a result of experience" (p. 167). Driver, Leach, Scott, and Wood-Robinson (1994) describe learning within a particular domain as being "characterised in terms of progress through a sequence of conceptualisations which portray significant steps in the way knowledge within the given domain is represented" (p. 85). Driver et al. define this progression as a "conceptual trajectory." Falk and Dierking (1992) suggest that visitors to museum settings learn when they "assimilate events and observations in mental categories of personal significance and character determined by events in their lives before and afterthe museum visit" (p. 123). Ausubel (1968), Ausubel et al. (1978), and Mintzes et al. (1997) describe learning as the transformation of, and change in knowledge.
Learning can be considered to be both a product, that is, a given state of knowledge, and a process, that is, an event, series of events, or episodes which lead to the formation of a knowledge product (Falk & Dierking, 1995). The processes of learning are varied and their identification and explanation differ depending on the constructivist theorist's view to which one subscribes. However, it is generally accepted among constructivists that the processes involve the sUbsumption of new or modified knowledge elements into the cognitive structure and the reorganisation of the knowledge frameworks. The reorganisation may entail making and breaking of connections between concepts and sometimes the replacement or substitution of one concept with another (Laudan, 1984; Mintzes et aI., 1997; Posner et aI., 1982).
29 Implicit in the discussion thus far is the role of the existing knowledge of an individual (cognitive structure) and integration of new or modifiedknowle dge elements. A learner's prior knowledge interacts with new or modified knowledge constructed by the learner resulting in knowledge transformation. The result of this in terms of the understanding it provides the individual is unique. Since no two individuals possess the same cognitive structure(s), the interaction of the new with existing knowledge will also be unique (Ausubel, 1968; Ausubel et aI., 1978; Mintzes & Wandersee, 1998; Mintzes et aI., 1997).
Describing learning is a difficultpro cess. The previous theoretical discussion of knowledge construction is a simplified view. Nonetheless, it provides some basis from which to begin to understand the processes of learning. The theory of these processes from constructivist perspectives is dealt with in further detail in the following section.
2.4.2 Theoretical views of knowledge construction
2.4.2.1 Piagetian View As alluded to brieflyin Section 2.2, Piaget's theories of learning concerned the development of schemata in relation to new experience. Piaget held the view that children, like adults, combine prior schemata with new experience. However, children's understandings of quantities such as time, volume, ratio, and space are different from those of adults (Piaget, 1970; Roschelle, 1995). Perhaps best known for his stage theory of cognitive development, Piaget theorised that children develop more encompassing, sophisticated schemata from childhood to maturity. At each operational stage (sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational), more encompassing structures become available to children to make sense of the experience they encounter. Thus, prior knowledge, in the form of schemata, plays a vital role in determining how children make sense of the experiences. Piaget theorised that knowledge grows by reformulation, and identified processes which could explain such changes in an individual's knowledge, namely,
30 assimilation, accommodation, and equilibration. Assimilation was the process by which new schemata were incorporated within the individual's knowledge while accommodation was the process by which knowledge was modified or reorganised. Furthermore, critical episodes in learning occurred when a tension arose between assimilation and accommodation, and neither mechanism was adequate to account for all learning. In such cases, equilibration mediated assimilation and accommodation, allowing the learner to crafta new, more coherent balance between schemata and sensory evidence (Ginsburg & Opper, 1979; Inhelder & Piaget, 1958; Piaget, 1970; Roschelle, 1995).
Piaget's theories proved to have a remarkable influence on the science education community of the day and on subsequent development of other theories of learning. However, from a contemporary perspective, these views suffer in that they failed to account for differences among individuals in terms of their prior knowledge and understandings. Furthermore, Piaget did not recognise the effect of contextual variables (i.e., social, physical, and personal contexts - See Section 2.5) on the learning process (Donaldson, 1978, Lawson, 1991; Mintzes & Wandersee, 1998).
2.4.2.2 Ausubelian View Among Ausubel' s contributions to the theories of learning was the recognition that the learner forms knowledge by interpreting new experiences (new concepts) in the light of prior understandings. Ausubel (1968) further described this interpretation (learning) in terms of rote and meaningful learning. Rote learning was described as the assimilation of knowledge elements into the cognitive structure, albeit with poor connection with other elements within that structure. The major limitations imposed by such learning are that such knowledge elements: are likely to be poorly retained in memory; are more difficultto retrieve; may potentially interfere in subsequent learning of related concepts; and are difficultto use in the development of other forms of knowledge and understanding such as contextual knowledge. Alternatively, meaningful learning was generally defined as the process by which new knowledge elements are well integrated into the hierarchically-
31 organised cognitive structure of the learner, making connections with existing knowledge and providing new meanings to the individual. Ausubel explained meaningful learning by a process he called "subsumption," in which new knowledge, composed of more specific, less inclusive concepts, is linked to more general and inclusive concepts that are already a part of the learner's cognitive structure. He asserted that those who learn meaningfully begin to develop cross-connections between related concepts, and eventually develop well-integrated, highly cohesive knowledge structures that enable them to engage in inferential and analogical reasoning.
The processes of meaningful learning can be likened to the Piagetian processes of assimilation of new knowledge elements into an existing cognitive framework and accommodation or reorganisation of the framework to account for new experience. Ausubel maintained that knowledge is transformed through the combination of new information and prior knowledge. Thus, a component of existing know ledge A, combined with new information a, transforms A into A'a' . In this process, A is forever changed by the assimilation of a, and new meaning is acquired. This process results in a modification of both the meaning of the new information a and the prior knowledge A to which a is attached. Neither a nor A can be retrieved in their original form, since a is assimilated into the cognitive structure in light of the existing knowledge A, which is in itself transformed. Ausubel postulated that it is possible for a' to be forgotten or disassociated from the cognitive
structure. However, the resulting disassociation would only leave A " thus A is not recoverable in its original form.
The process of sequential assimilation, that is, the continued addition of new information to the cognitive structure, results in what Ausubel termed "progressive differentiation" of the individual's concepts. Here, new concept a'A' may assimilate new information b, thus transforming it into b'a'A'. In this view, a'A' is the existing, prior knowledge of the individual, which undergoes reconstruction through the assimilation of b. This has the effect of refining the meaning of these concepts.
32 Further, the assimilation of these additional concepts provides great opportunity for new concepts to be anchored to this knowledge, which allows further meaningful learning (Ausubel et aI., 1978). In these views, assimilation increases knowledge, while preserving the cognitive structure, by incorporating new information into the framework. However, accommodation increases knowledge by modifying or reorganising the framework to account for new experience. Ausubel also claimed that a learner's knowledge can also be transformed through the process of integrative reconciliation. This process is one in which an explicit delineation of similarities and/or differences between related concepts is developed through processes of progressive differentiation.
In a more overarching perspective, Ausubel described further processes of learning in terms of knowledge transformation through superordinate learning. In this process, new, more general, inclusive, and powerful concepts are acquired that subsume existing ideas in an individual's understandings. This kind of learning can result in a significant reordering of cognitive structure and may produce grand scale conceptual change. For example, an individual may come to the understanding that the principles that govern the relationships that apply to gravitational forces are similar to those that apply to electrostatic forces in terms of the way the related variables governing the equations inter-relate, that is, the distance between two bodies (r) of mass or charge, varies the respective force by a factor of 1Ir .
Key to all these aforementioned processes theorised by Ausubel, was the role of the learner's prior knowledge in the development of new understanding(s). Perhaps the most often-cited advice of David Ausubel is in the epigraph of his 1968 publication: Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View:
If I had to reduce all of educational psychology to just one principle, I would say this: The most important single factor influencing learningis what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach him accordingly. (p. vi)
33 In this view, Ausubel emphasised the significant and influencing role that the learner's prior knowledge and understanding have in the individual's construction of knowledge.
2.4.2.3 Synthesised views of knowledge construction: Va lsiner and Leung Having their genesis in Piaget's theories of conceptual change (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958; Ginsburg & Opper, 1979; Piaget, 1970; Piaget, 1971), and in keeping with the views of Ausubel (1968), Valsiner and Leung (1994) built fmiher on the contemporary views of constructivism and provided some concrete representations for the ways individuals learn and knowledge is transformed. Like Ausubel, Valsiner and Leung regarded knowledge as categorised or grouped under key concepts, hence knowledge elements are also connected hierarchically within a substructure. Substructures are akin to chunks of domain-specific knowledge as described by McDermott (1988). Valsiner and Leung also agreed that knowledge may be transformed in a number of ways. New elements can be incorporated within a substructure; the substructure may lose knowledge elements; the substructure may simply be reorganised without the addition or expulsion of elements; the substructure may merge with other substructures or split as a result of the realisation that the particular association of elements is no longer appropriate. The following discussion further explores these notions of knowledge construction and has been adapted from Valsiner and Leung (1994).
Figure 2.1 represents a knowledge substructure where a concept "A" is the dominant 1\A concept and is linked to lower order concepts "B" B C and "c." Concept "C" is linked to other concepts /\E� "D" and "E," while concept "B" is only indirectly D linked through "A" and "C" to concepts "D" and Figure 2.1. Knowledge substructure
"E" e
34 Figure 2.2 represents one method by which know ledge may be constructed through the process /A of addition of a concept element. In this instance, a B �C F new concept "F" is added to the knowledge /\ substructure by joining the primary concept "A," D E although the addition process could equally occur by Figure 2.2. Addition attachment to any of the other concept elements within the knowledge substructure.
Figure 2.3 describes another process of A� knowledge construction - reorganisation. In this / example of learning, no new concepts are added to Be/ E the substructure, but the existing elements are D rearranged. For example, prior to reorganisation Figure 2.3. Reorganisation (Figure 2.1), concept "E" was only associated with "C," and only indirectly associated with "A." However, an episode either internal or external to the individual, causes concept "E" to be more directly associated with "A," thus causing a rearrangementof the substructure and a change in the knowledge relating to "A."
Figure 2.4 describes the process of disassociation. Here a concept or group of concepts A\ become no longer associated with the original B C knowledge substructure. For example, concept "B" /\ D E disassociates from "A" and the substructure of knowledge. It should be noted that "B" is not totally Figure 2.4. Disassociation removed from the knowledge substructure, but rather the link that connects it to "A" may substantively change in the disassociation process.
Finally, Figure 2.5 describes the knowledge construction of merging substructures - a view akin to that of Ausubel' s superordinate learning. This process
35 is similar to addition, but whereas addition simply involved the attaching of a concept to the /x� substructure, merging involves the attaching of a A Y
whole substructure to another substructure. An B/ \C Z /\w example of such may be the realisation that "A" is D/\ E just one form of "X," and that there are other types Figure 2.5. Merging of "X" of which "Y," is but one, and has associated concepts "Z" and "W" linked with it.
In these views, there are essentially two components to knowledge transformation which results in what is commonly termed "learning." First, the size of the knowledge structure may change, and second, the concepts within that knowledge substructure may become more interconnected (Glaser & Bassok, 1989; Royer, Cisero, & Carlo, 1993). Thus, to be knowledgeable about a given topic domain requires that the knowledge substructures which constitute that domain be both rich in concepts and interconnections between those concepts. It should be noted that these views of learning are not akin to the actual neurological processes, but are rather theoretical models to describe learning processes. Moreover, these views are probably somewhat simplistic in comparison with the actual processes. Their greatest deficiency is that the concepts in each knowledge substructure are not seen to change with the addition of new concepts or the reorganisation of the structure. Further, the relationships or interconnections between concepts are seen as discrete. However, this is also probably not an accurate depiction of such relationships, as the strength of their association likely varies. That is, an individual may know certain things about "A" well and other aspects not so well.
2.4.2.4 Conceptual change: Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog views Many contemporary researchers have been influencedby Posner et a1. (1982). They regard changes in an individual's knowledge as occurring through similar sorts of transformation processes as previously discussed, namely, addition, reorganisation, and rejection. The addition of new conceptions can occur through
36 experiences which the individual may have, whereby new ideas are simply added to the individual's knowledge. The addition of new ideas may or may not be consistent with existing ideas. Reorganisation of existing conceptions can be triggered externally though experience producing a new idea or internally, as the process of thought. In such instances, no new conceptions are added but existing conceptions are reorganised in such a way as to provide new meaning and understanding for the individual. Rejection of some existing conception may occur potentially as a result of conceptual reorganisation, or because it is displaced by some new conception which resides more comfortably as part of existing knowledge.
Posner et al. (1982) described further the processes by which new concepts are established within the cognitive framework of an individual as part of the knowledge construction processes. They consider a particular conception, C, as one of many conceptions held by an individual. For example, C, might be a theory about a certain naturally-occurring phenomenon. When confronted in some way with a new conception C' which may be an alternative theory concerning the same phenomenon, then C' can either be rejected or incorporated into the individual's understandings. If it is incorporated, then this may occur in a number of ways, namely, 1) rote memorisation, in which case the links with other conceptual domain may be weak or place no demands on other conceptions, 2) conceptual exchange, a process in which C is replaced by C' and reconciled with the remaining conceptions, or 3) conceptual capture, a process in which C' is reconciled with existing conceptions, including C. Reconciliation was defined by Posner et al. (1982) as the process by which an individual makes sense of a new conception such as C', and gives it meaning by contextualising it within existing knowledge and understanding. Hewson (1981) claimed that:
Reconciling C with C' implies that there are significant inferential links between them, that they do not contradict one another, that they are parts of the same integrated set of ideas, [and] that there is consistency between them. (p. 386)
37 In terms of the ways in which a new concept is incorporated into an individual's understanding and knowledge, conceptual capture is the process by which C' is reconciled with C and conceptual exchange is the process by which C is replaced by C' because they are irreconcilable.
Posner et al. (1982), asserted that four conditions must be met before conceptual exchange can occur, namely, 1) there must be some dissatisfaction with the existing conceptions C, 2) the new conception, C', must be intelligible, 3) the new conception, C', must be initially plausible, and 4) the new conception, C', must be fruitful. Generally speaking, an individual will not exchange an existing conception without good reason to be dissatisfiedwith it. Dissatisfaction with an existing conception can occur in two ways. First, an individual realises that C is unable to be reconciled with new knowledge which can no longer be ignored, and secondly, when C itself is seen to violate some "epistemological standard" (Hewson, 1981, p. 387) such as appearing clumsy, unnecessarily complicated, or inelegant. The condition of intelligibility is necessary for conceptual exchange, since the individual must be able to comprehend the nature and essence of the new conception as a prerequisite to being able to incorporate it into existing conceptions. If C' is found to be intelligible, the individual must be able to construct a coherent representation of the nature and characteristics of C'. It is possible for an individual to identify C' as being intelligible but not hold C' as being true against the framework of conceptions and beliefs that he/she currently holds. However, in order for exchange to occur, the new conception must also be plausible, that is, the individual must be able to see that a world in which C' is true, is also reconcilable with existing conceptions of the world. Initial plausibility of C' is dependent upon the relationship of C' with the existing conceptions, knowledge, and views of the world held by the individual. It presupposes the fact that C' is in fact intelligible, since a conception would not be able to be accepted as plausible if it were not first judged to be intelligible. Finally, a conception will not be exchanged or replaced unless the individual deems it to be fruitful. The individual must see that there is some advantage to be gained, such as the reduction of cognitive dissonance,
38 increased understanding(s), or the perceived ability to solve a previously unsolved problem.
Notwithstanding the validity of the conceptual change model as argued by Posner et al. (1982), West and Pines (1983) point out that the theoretical descriptions ignore important nonrational elements and components of conceptual exchange. Furthermore, Gunstone and White (1981) suggest that what is often taken for granted as conceptual change is usually not more than a rote compartmentalisation of formal knowledge (knowledge construction from formal schooling experiences), without the simultaneous abandoning of conflicting spontaneous knowledge (knowledge construction outside of the formal school context). Section 2.6.3. details some example of studies which examine learning in terms of the conceptual change model.
2.4.2.5 Human constructivism: No vakian View Joseph Novak, having been strongly influencedby Ausubelian views of learning, sees meaning making as encompassing both a theory of learning and an epistemology of knowledge building which he calls Human Constructivism. In this view, N ovak seeks to find accord among the processes of meaningful learning, knowledge restructuring, and conceptual change (Mintzes & Wandersee, 1998, p. 48). Mintzes and Wandersee describe Novak's Human Constructivist view as offering:
the heuristic and predictive power of a psychological model of human learning together with the analytical and explanatory potential embodied in a unique philosophical perspective on conceptual change. (p.47) . ...
In our view, Novak's Human Constructivism is the only comprehensive effort that successfully synthesises current knowledge derived from a cognitive theory of learning and an expansive epistemology, together with a set of useful tools for classroom teachers and other knowledge builders. (p. 48)
Human constructivism asserts that individuals construct meaning from connections between new concepts and the existing knowledge frameworks that each individual holds. As with other forms of constructivism, its proponents profess that
39 no two individuals construct exactly the same meanings about a given topic or subject, even if presented with the same events or experiences, for example, the same classroom lesson or lecture. Thus, human constructivists repudiate the view that knowledge is a product that can be faithfully conveyed to learners by others. In this view, knowledge is idiosyncratic and produced by individuals themselves.
In general terms, Novak's views on the actual processes of knowledge construction and the making of meaning are highly congruent with those which have been described in the previous three subsections (Sections 2.4.2.2, 2.4.2.3, and 2.4.2.4). However, Novak points out that much of learning is often gradual and assimilative in nature, and results from processes of subsumption which result in a "weak" form of knowledge restructuring and an incremental change in conceptual understanding. Nevertheless, there are moments and conditions which formulate within the cognitive structure of an individual and produce significant and rapid shifts in conceptual understanding. These shifts are a product of a radical or "strong" form of knowledge restructuring that results from superordinate learning. The end result of this form of knowledge construction is a strongly hierarchical, dendritic, and cohesive set of interrelatedconcepts (Mintzes & Wandersee, 1998, p. 49).
From the human constructivist perspective, three criteria must be met in order for the individual to learn in a meaningful way. First, the learning episodes themselves must have potential meaning, that is, the symbols, language, and component of that episode must be intelligible to the learner (Posner et aI., 1982). Second, the individual must possess a framework of relevant, domain-specific concepts into which new knowledge can be integrated. Finally, the learner must choose voluntarily to incorporate new concepts in a non-arbitrary, non-verbatim fashion (Pears all, Skipper, & Mintzes, 1997, p. 195).
The key assertions of the Novakian view of knowledge construction are that the processes of knowledge building are often gradual, incremental, and assimilative
40 in nature (Carey, 1987; Rumelhart & Norman, 1978; Pears all et al., 1997). It is through the individual's exposure to successive experiences, which are interpreted in the light of prior understanding, that changes in conceptual understanding are produced. The cognitive structure of an individual is thus dynamic and in a continual state of construction as new experiences are encountered and interpreted by the learner.
2.4.3 Summary of views on learning
In summarising the ideas discussed in Section 2.4, it is evident that there are numerous definitions for the terms knowledge, understanding and learning, each having its utility in the context of a given research paradigm, philosophical view, and research agenda. The views of learning and knowledge construction have been, and continue to be in a continual state of evolution. However, at this stage, several key attributes of the constructivist paradigm appear to have acceptance and agreement among educational researchers, and can be summarised as follows.
1) Knowledge is uniquely structured by the individual; 2) The assimilation and interconnection of knowledge elements results in understanding for the individual; 3) Individuals actively construct knowledge and make meaning for themselves through their own experiences and reflectionon their own understandings; 4) The processes of knowledge construction are often gradual, incremental, and assimilative in nature; 5) Changes in understanding are interpreted in the light of prior knowledge and understanding.
Section 2.5 considers further some of the ideas of the situated learning theorists and studies which support their views. Their ideas hold true to the attributes of the constructivist paradigm perviously summarised, but also argue the need to
41 consider the contexts in which the learner is situated to appreciate more fully the processes of learning.
2.5 The Influence of Context: Factors Influencing Knowledge Construction
As alluded to in Sections 1.2 and 2.2, situated learning theorists believe that it is inadequate to consider learning as the decontextualised formation of knowledge, rather than dialectic interaction between individuals, their social and physical contexts, and the activity to which they are attending (Lave, 1988). The setting for the present research was an interactive science centre and therefore it is important to consider further the role of context in such settings where social interaction and physical stimuli are rich.
It has been argued (Berry, 1983; Ceci & Roazzi, 1994; Charlesworth, 1979; Cole & Scribner, 1974; Falk & Dierking, 1992, 1997; Irvine & Berry, 1988; Valsiner & Leung, 1994) that learning is dependent on the experiences gained through a variety of contexts commonly referred to as the social, physical, and personal contexts. Further, the interactions of the factors operating in these contexts ultimately affects the amount, type and saliency of the knowledge constructed. The social context of the individual, such as type of group, group size, level of group intimacy, level of group interaction, expertise of other group members, the relationships between group members, and the time the group spends at exhibits, are also known to affect learning in informal settings. The physical context includes environmental factors such as lighting, temperature, colours, labelling, odours, cleanliness, and accessibility, as well as the attributes and characteristics of the displays themselves, that is, the number and type of human senses which are engaged; type and complexity of exhibit signage and text; attractiveness and location of the display; sequence in which exhibits are encountered; and even architecture and "feel" of the building. The personal context includes factors inherent to the individual, such as prior knowledge, interest, motivation, mood, perceived relevance,
42 and level of perceived novelty. All of these factors have been shown to have an influence on visitor learning outcomes, and will be reviewed in detail in following sections.
Despite the fact that social, physical, and personal contexts can be logically identified and separated, it is more reasonable to assume that learning occurs through the interaction of these contexts, holistic ally forming each individual's experiences. These contexts are rarely independent of one another. Individuals' personal contexts affect the way they perceive the physical and social contexts in which they reside. Similarly, alterations in the social or physical context have a bearing on each individual's personal context. It is not easy to localise the impact of a single contextual variable, such as an individual's level of interest (personal), the type of social group with which the individual visits (social), or characteristics of the setting (physical) on learning, since the personal, social and physical contexts are so interconnected (Ceci & Roazzi, 1994). Ultimately, ways in which these contexts interact affects the ways in which knowledge is transformed and constructed. Thus, knowledge is seen as being produced by the experiences generated through these contexts (Pope & Gilbert, 1983). Arguably, the saliency of these
Social Physical contexts may be heightened in Context Context science museum settings, which makes them ideal settings for studying learning. Figure 2.6 Personal depicts the interaction of these Context three contexts (Falk & Dierking,
Figure 2.6. Interactive Experience Model 1992, p. 5).
The following sections discuss studies relevant to learning in museum settings and consider the importance of the effects of the social, physical, and personal context in the learning process. For the most part the research studies
43 reviewed focused on learning in one of the three contexts, nevertheless the applicability of the interactive experience model (Figure 2.6) is frequently evident.
2.5.1 The effect of the social context on learning
The interactions which occur within a science museum happen not only between individuals and exhibits, but also between individuals (Tuckey, 1992). Diamond (1986), in a study of the behaviour of family groups in science museums, claims that "there is substantial evidence that social interactions between visitors may be important in stimulating learning at exhibits" (p. 152). However, of the studies which focus on the influence of the social context on learning in informal settings (e.g., Balling, Hilke, Liversidge, Cornell, & Perry, 1984; Benton, 1979; Diamond, 1980; Dierking, 1987; McManus, 1987, 1988; Rosenfeld, 1980; Taylor, 1986), few, with the exceptions of Blud (1990) and Borun, Chambers and Cleghorn (1996), have demonstrated a correlation between observable behaviour and an independent measure of learning.
Visits to museum settings are, for the most part,en joyable social events. This is, in part, due to the fact that visitors bring with them an expectation of enjoyment of the social context (Dierking, 1994; Dierking & Falk, 1992; Laetsch et aI., 1980). Even school fieldtrips to these contextually informal education facilities generate feelings of anticipated excitement, novelty, and tremendous social interaction. McManus (1987) suggested that since part of the reason for visiting a public education facility is the anticipation of enjoyable social interaction, it may be safe to assume that patrons value this interaction, further enhancing the development of favourable attitudes. Therefore, it may be that the majority of patrons are not willing to:
reduce their attention to, and responses to, the social climate they have brought with them when they give their attention to the exhibits, as they would be prepared to do when receiving educational communication in a more formal control environment. (McManus, 1987, p. 263)
44 Notwithstanding the evidence of the research cited above, it would be improper to assume that, simply because visitors do not have their full attention directed towards the exhibit, they are not learning exhibit-related content or information. Indeed, social interaction around exhibits, whether it be with staff, volunteers, friends, or family, is a meaningful part of the learning process. Significant learning, in all domains (Bloom, 1964), can be gained by sharing ideas and interpretations of the exhibit stimuli, thus helping others to make connections between the exhibit and other phenomena (Dierking, 1994, 1996a, 1996b; Laetsch et al., 1980). The exchange of individual perceptions and ideas is likely to transpire when many focus on a given stimulus such as an exhibit together. Thus, it can be argued that the quality and quantity of learning among individuals in informal learning environments may increase in an appropriate group.
McManus' (1988) study of the social determination of learning-related behaviour in science museums investigated the behaviour of four types of groups in science museums - groups containing children, singletons, couples, and adult groups. The sample, comprising 1,572 individuals in 641 visitor groups, was drawn from visitors to the British Museum (Natural History), London, England. The observed behavioural characteristics were: duration of conversation, interaction with exhibits (play), duration of visit (from the arrival of the firstgroup member to the departure of the last from an exhibit), and reading behaviour (exhibit text). It was noted that the conversation duration among the "groups with children" increased as a function of social intimacy. Within this population, three descending levels of social intimacy were identified- family groups, child peer groups, and teacher-pupil groups. Family groups conversed the most and teacher-pupil groups conversed the least. Thus, there may be a relationship between the overall cohesiveness of a group and the type and amount of learning behaviour which will occur in exhibit interaction, if conversation duration is a function of learning. McManus (1988) claimed that:
a friendly group which got on well together would be better able to negotiate differences of opinion and explore a topic in discussion than a less intimate
45 group. An intimate group would thus be a better learning group, and so derive more understanding from the exhibits, than a less intimate group. (p. 38)
It can, however, be argued that a highly cohesive group of noisy, active children with a gang mentality could not possibly be on task, and thus institutionally intended learning may be minimal. This assertion is in part reinforced by Schachter (1959), who contended that the novelty of an environment may induce arousal which may lead to affiliationwith others in the same environment. This affiliation may interfere with task-related learning.
Blud (1990) studied the effect of social interaction, gender, and exhibit type on learning among adult-child pairs at three exhibits of differing levels of interaction at the Science Museum, London. The three exhibits differed in their level of interaction: one exhibit could be manipulated and experimented with; another was a push button type exhibit; and the third was a static exhibit. Twenty-four pairs, each containing one adult and one child between the ages of 9 and 12, were interviewed about their understanding of concepts relating to gears and simple mechanics after their interaction with one of three types of exhibits. Participants' interview responses were scored on an eight point scale. The 72 adults and 72 children participants were stratifiedequally by gender forming four different combinations of dyad: adult male + boy; adult male + girl; adult female + boy; adult female + girl. The effects of social interaction on learning were determined by allowing half the pairs to interact at the exhibit together, and the other half to study the exhibit alone. A two-way analysis of variance considering exhibit type and social condition for children in pairs revealed that there was no significant difference in children's performance at the different types of exhibits and no overall difference in learning between the two levels of social condition, although Blud noted that the data suggested a possible interaction. Comparisons between the social and individual groups for the separate exhibits revealed a statistically significant difference at the interactive exhibit only (t=2.29, df= 22, p<.05). Significant differences were also noted on a three-way analysis of variance (exhibit x gender x condition). Statistically supported main effects were observed, with boys performing better than
46 girls overall (F=3.79, dj =I,60, p<.05). Similar analyses were performed for the adult members of the groups (exhibit x condition x gender) with the only significant main effect being for gender (F=5.25, dj =I,60, p<.02) with males outperforming females.
Borun et al.'s (1996) study, embedded in a social constructivist paradigm, investigated the behaviours and conversations of family groups at four informal learning settings: The Franklin Institute Science Museum, Philadelphia, P A; New Jersey State Aquarium, Camden, NJ; The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, P A; and the Philadelphia Zoological Garden; Philadelphia, P A. Some 129 family units, consisting of 428 individuals were observed to interact at key exhibits. Families were definedas a multi-generational group consisting of not more than six members and containing at least one child aged 5 to 1 ° years and at least one adult. Researchers unobtrusively recorded family behaviours on video tape and their conversations on audio tape, and later analysed these data sets. Afterthe last member of the family group had ceased to interact with the exhibit, the entire family was approached and asked two questions: "What do you think this exhibit is trying to show?" and "What comes to mind when you see this exhibit?" The interviewer involved the group in a discussion of the family's reactions to and perceptions of the exhibit. Questioning began with the youngest family member, and all members were asked to contribute in sequence to ensure that the researcher was able to hear from both children and adults. Three levels of learning were used to describe visitor understanding of exhibit-based information and connections to prior knowledge.
Level one was definedby Identifying - one word statements or answers, few associations to exhibit content, connections to content but missing the point of the exhibit. Level two was defined by Describing - multiple-word answers, correct connections to visible exhibit characteristics, connections to personal experience based on visible exhibit characteristics, not concepts. Level three was definedby
Interpreting and Applying - multiple-word answers, correct statement of concepts behind exhibits, connection of exhibit concepts to life experiences (prior knowledge). Qualitative analysis of visitor behaviour, conversations, and interview
47 data was able to provide supporting evidence of learning and eventual categorisation of the level of learning. Interestingly, there were not notable differences in learning across the four informal settings. Forty-two percent of visitors were classed as level one, 46% were classed at level two, and 12% at level three. Borun et aI.' s level three outcome might be considered to be procedural and contextual type knowledge, while level one outcomes might be considered declarative in nature. Section 2.6.1 explores further the roles of science centre experiences in the generation of these types of knowledge.
In summary, the review of the literature thus far in Section 2.5, suggests that an individual's interaction with his/her social context is an important variable which may influencelearni ng. Moreover, in keeping with the epistemological and philosophical views of both radical and social constructivists, it is critical to consider the social dimensions of learning in any study focusing on learning in informal science settings. At this stage, it appears that much of the museum studies literature simply provides evidence for the link between social interaction and learning. However, what is clearly lacking in such studies is a more in-depth analysis of the learning processes which emerge from social interaction and discourse.
2.5.2 The effect of physical context on learning
Evans (1995), in a review of the literature relating to the effects of the physical characteristics of setting on learning, claims that evidence for direct environmental effect on learning is limited. Instead, Evans claims the physical environment is shown to influence various psychological processes such as cognitive fatigue, distraction, motivation, emotional affect, that, in turn, are assumed to affect learning. Notwithstanding, a number of studies attest to the effect of physical context on learning outcomes (e.g., Anderson, 1994; Anderson, Hilke, Kramer, Abrams, & Dierking, 1997; Endsley, 1967; Evans, 1995; Falk & Balling, 1982; Falk et aI., 1978; Kubota & Olstad, 1991; Lubow, Rifkin, & Alek, 1976; Martin, Falk, & Balling, 1981; Mendel, 1965; Orion & Hofstein, 1994). Consistent with
48 the Interactive Experience Model (Figure 2.6), the findings of these studies suggest that the characteristics of the physical and personal context can generate feelings of novelty within people. The aforementioned studies provide evidence that novelty affects learning, and that there is an appropriate level of perceived novelty which is beneficial to individuals during learning. At high levels of novelty the individual may experience feelings of fear, excitement, or nervousness, which inhibit on-task learning. At very low levels of novelty where settings may be very familiar, boredom, fatigue, and diversionary activities may result (Falk & Balling, 1980).
Falk et al. (1978) and Martin et al. (1981) investigated the effects of novelty on learning outcomes in a series of joint studies in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In their studies of the effect of setting novelty on children's behaviour and learning (Falk et aI., 1978), some thirty-one children, ranging in age from 10 to 13 years (mean 11.5) were taken to the Smithsonian Institutions Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental Studies (CBCES). The children were divided into two groups. One group of 17 children were familiar with the setting, because they lived near a wooded setting and had previously been to the CBCES. The other group of 14 children were unfamiliar with the setting, because they lived in an urban area and had not previously visited CBCES. Both groups were pre-tested for knowledge of the concepts to be learned in the activity of the forest display, which neither group had seen before, and later post-tested to determine cognitive change using an instrument containing multiple choice and short-answer questions. In the group unfamiliar with the setting, exploration and setting-orientated learning took priority over task-orientated conceptual learning. The group familiar with the setting was able to achieve both setting and task-orientated conceptual learning at the same time. A later study by Falk and Balling (1982) revealed that not only novelty, but also developmental ages of children in novel settings affected cognitive and affective learning outcomes. In this study, 196 children, consisting of groups of third and fifth graders, were exposed to learning experiences in familiar and unfamiliar wooded forest settings. The results of the cognitive, affective and behavioural measures all reinforced the thesis that the general level of setting familiarity is important to
49 consider in the learning situation. Pre- and post-tests showed that the effect of novelty depended upon the developmental level of students as measured by their grade level. The analysis of the post-test scores revealed a significant gradex location interaction (F = 6.95, df= 1 p< .01). The Grade 3 children's cognitive learning was found to be slightly less for those in the unfamiliar setting as opposed to their counterparts in the school setting. The Grade 5 children's cognitive learning was found to be slightly greater for those in unfamiliar settings, as opposed to their counterparts in the familiar school setting. The study made the assumption that developmental age closely correlates with chronological age. The findings of this study are consistent with Anderson's (1994) description of novelty in so much as the degree of novelty was a function of the individual's past experiences. It is clear that since there is a chronological age difference between third and fifth grade students, there would also be a difference in life (past) experiences, both quantitative and qualitative. Thus, what may be a novel setting to the third graders, may not be so to the fifth graders.
Kubota and Olstad (1991) examined the relationships between novelty and exploration, novelty and cognitive learning, and exploratory behaviour and cognitive learning among sixth-grade students at Pacific Science Center, Seattle, W A. An experimental group experienced a novelty-reducing treatment in the form of a slide/tape presentation which provided vicarious knowledge of the exhibitions at the science museum. The control group received a non-novelty-reducing slide presentation of another section of the science museum. Dependent variables were exploration behaviour and cognitive learning, with socioeconomic status and prior academic achievement as co-variants, novelty level as the independent variable and gender as a moderating variable. Cognitive learning was assessed by a 56-item, multiple choice test, while behaviour was assessed by the amount of time students spent meaningfully engaging with the exhibits. An analysis of variance revealed that there was a statistically significant main effect between those who received the novelty-reducing treatment and the control group (F=8.56, df= 1, p<.001). The analysis also revealed that there was a statistically significant interaction between
50 gender and novelty for both cognitive learning (p<.02)and exploratory behaviour (p<.OOI). In both cases, male students only benefited from the novelty-reducing treatment.
Building on the findings of the previous studies, Anderson (1994) considered that if high levels of perceived novelty were detrimental to individuals' cognitive learning in free choice settings, then orientation to the physical setting might serve to moderate this novelty to a level which would more effectively promote such learning. Anderson's study focused on the cognitive learning of 75 Year 8 students visiting a science centre, in Brisbane, Australia. The variables in the study were: prior visitation to the science centre, exposure to a novelty-reducing pre-orientation program, and gender; with achievement on a 19-item multiple choice post-test of knowledge about concepts portrayed by the exhibits being the dependent variable. A randomised control-group post-test only design was used. The experimental group was exposed to a novelty-reducing pre-orientation program in which students were informed about the physical setting of the science centre. After the visit to the science centre, both control and experimental groups were post-tested. Statistically significant main effects were noted for the variables of background (F=9.24, dJ= l, p<.OI) and orientation (F=6.92, dJ= l,p<.05). A two-way analysis of variance indicated that those who had visited the science museum previously and had received the novelty-reducing pre-orientation program performed better on the measures of knowledge of exhibition concepts than their counterparts (F=7.28, dJ= 1, p<.05). No statistically significant main effect or interaction were noted for gender.
In Israel, Orion and Hofstein (1994) investigated the educational effectiveness of a one-day geological field trip in terms of student knowledge and attitudes toward geology, during and afterthe field trip. Their study included 296 students in grades 9 through 11. Three groups of students were given different types of orientation prior to their field trip experience, and observational and post experience questionnaires served to identify differing levels of knowledge and attitude after the field trip experiences. The questionnaires consisted of attitudinal
51 inventories and a 17-item, multiple choice achievement test to assess the extent and type of knowledge gained from the field trip experience. Orion and Hofstein concur with Falk et al. (1978) that novelty is a crucial factor in determining the degree of learning from such an experience. However, their study suggests that there are several dimensions to novelty, namely, cognitive, geographic, and psychological. Cognitive novelty is dependent upon the concepts and skills the students are asked to use during the course of their field trip experience. Geographic novelty "reflectsthe acquaintance of the students with the field trip area" (p. 1116). This may be considered similar to familiarity with the physical environment as was described in Anderson's (1994) study. Finally, Orion and Hofstein refer to psychological novelty which mentally prepares students for the events and schedule of experience they will encounter during their fieldtrip. Of the three experimental groups in this study, one group received a complete orientation including cognitive, geographical and psychological; another received only minimal cognitive orientation; and the other effectively received no orientation other than a summary of their geology course or what Orion and Hofstein called "traditional orientation." The results are consistent with other novelty studies cited in that those who experienced the more complete orientation performed statistically significantlybetter on learning and attitudinal measures than their counterparts.
Anderson, Hilke, Kramer, Abrams, and Dierking (1997) indicated the level of visitor density in a museum gallery affected the time spent and the quality of interactions at exhibits. This study, conducted at the National Air and Space Museum, Washington, D.e., also investigated the ways visitors utilised the gallery space by unobtrusive tracking and behavioural observation of 56 randomly selected visitors over a period of several days. The time visitors spent in various areas of the gallery was noted, in addition to an assessment of the quality of their behavioural interactions with the exhibits on a fivepoint Likert scale. Upon the completion of the visitor observations, the level of visitor density in the gallery was also assessed on a three point scale (low, moderate and high). A comparison of the average time visitors spent in the gallery as a whole with the level of visitor density at the time of
52 the visit revealed that, on average, visitors spent more time when the level of visitor density in the gallery was moderate, and less time when the visitor density was either high or low (low, x = 12.07 mins; moderate, x = 17.70 mins; high, x = 12.72 mins).
In addition, in certain sections of the gallery where the exhibits were rich in audio, visual and kinesthetic stimuli, the quality of visitors' interactions was also heightened when the visitor density was moderate. Thus the visitor density in the museum gallery appears to affect visitor behaviour. Although this study assessed visitor learning through face-to-face interviews, causal relationships between learning and the number of visitors in the gallery were not possible, because the samples of visitors tracked and interviewed were separate and independent. However, one might speculate that visitors who did spend more time in the gallery and who were observed having higher quality interactions with exhibits there, would have likely learned more from their visit to the museum.
Other aspects of the physical context include the nature and type of exhibits the visitor interacts with in an exhibition. For example, how multisensory an exhibit is affects learning (Biggs, 1991; Wright 1980). The more senses a visitor employs, the greater the depth and permanency of learning which occurs (Duterroil, 1975; Field, 1975). Peart's (1984) study on the impact of exhibit type on visitors' knowledge gain, attitudes, and behaviour compared the holding power (time spent) and knowledge gain produced by a series of exhibits of similar type as a function of the number of senses they employed. Some 616 first time visitors, of unspecified age, to the British Columbia Provincial Museum took part in the study. Peart used a variety of versions of the same exhibit which at various times contained: text only; picture only; text and picture; text, pictures, and sound. Thus the exhibit increased in its "richness" and the number of senses it required visitors to employ. Peart claims that upon post-testing visitors, exhibit knowledge increased significantly as a function of the exhibit's "richness." In addition, the holding power of the exhibit increased as a function of the exhibit's "richness." However, Peart did not describe the nature of the knowledge assessment instrument, other than that it was quantitative in nature, nor did he report the nature of the statistical tests used to
53 assess "significant differences." Wright's (1980) study compared sixth grade students' learning of concepts in human biology in a classroom setting and in a museum setting which included multi-sensory displays and exhibits. The findings revealed that the use of structured museum lessons and multi-sensory hands-on experiences produced higher levels of cognitive learning, as determined by a 50-item multiple choice test, than the learning derived from the more traditional classroom setting.
In summary, several pertinent factors emerge from the review of studies concerning the effect of physical context on learning. First, the physical context in which the individual is situated and experiences an informal setting has a strong effect on the subsequent learning which occurs. Second, given that physical environments of informal learning settings can produce high levels of perceived novelty, which may in turn have a deleterious effect on intended cognitive learning, it would appear to be important to reduce novelty levels experienced during the initial and crucial stages of the visit. This is especially the case in the context of school field trip visits which are often of limited duration. Studies conducted by Anderson (1994), Orion and Hofstein, (1994), and Kubota and Olstad (1991) all point to the benefits of pre-orientation for cognitive learning in informal settings. Third, studies thus far have, for the most part, considered the impact of certain variables in the informal setting using measures of learning as the dependent variable. Moreover, the measures of learning are somewhat global in their dimension and merely seek to demonstrate that there were changes in learning as a result of differential intervention, rather than to define the nature of such changes. This is exemplified by the large proportion of studies which employ multiple choice tests and ANOVA statistics to demonstrate statistically significant effects. Fourth, it could be argued that studies cited in Section 2.5 thus far have adopted an inappropriate epistemological perspective in relation to learning. In many of these studies, one might easily conjecture that the researchers see learning as the acquisition of facts and information, rather than the gradual, incremental, and assimilative growth in knowledge interpreted in the light of prior knowledge and
54 understanding (Section 2.4.2). Given the methods which have dominated research in informal settings, and in keeping with the concluding remarks in Section 2.5.1, future research on learning in informal settings requires a more in-depth analysis of the learning processes utilising more appropriate methodologies in keeping with a constructivist epistemology (Section 2.4.2).
2.5.3 The effect of personal context on learning
2.5.3.1 Prior knowledge as a component of the personal context on learning An individual's prior knowledge, attitudes, interest, previous experience, perceived relevance, expectations, and agendas are all elements which are considered to constitute an individual's personal context (Falk & Dierking, 1992). Perhaps one of the most salient factors influencinglearning discussed in the review of knowledge construction (Section 2.4.2) is an individual's prior knowledge. The elaborations of Section 2.4 stem from the premise that learning results from the transformation of an existing, structured knowledge through experience and reflection. Thus, prior knowledge is a key to further learning (Ausubel, 1968; Churchman, 1985a, 1985b; Driver & Bell, 1986; Glasersfeld, 1984; Posner & Gertzog, 1982; Roschell, 1995; Resnick, 1983).
With the exception of Beiers and McRobbie's (1992) study (to be discussed in Section 2.6.2), and possibly that of Borun et al. (1996) (discussed in Section 2.5.1), there are few example of studies which consider the effect of prior knowledge and learning in informal contexts. However, researchers who have an interest in the field of informal learning, such as Churchman (1985a, 1985b, 1987), Falk (1983), Falk et al. (1986), Koran and Longino (1982), Lakota (1976), Shettel (1973) and educational theorists such as those described in Section 2.4, have asserted that what individuals bring to a learning experience in terms of their past experiences and knowledge has a large bearing on the learning that may result. The fact that there are so few studies of learning in informal settings which consider prior knowledge as a variable is therefore surprising. However, there are numerous studies which
55 consider the effect of prior learning in more traditional learning settings. Studies of students' prior knowledge in science and mathematics began in the 1970s (see reviews in Confrey, 1990; McDermott, 1994; Eylon & Linn, 1988). Further, there have been numerous studies relating to students' misconceptions, that is prior knowledge which is constructed differently from the scientifically accepted structure (Duit, 1994; Wandersee, Mintzes, & Novak, 1994). For example, Carey (1985) and Keil (1979) focus on misconceptions in biology, Lewis (1991) and Wiser and Carey (1993) focus on misconceptions in heat and temperature, while Cohen, Eylon and Ganiel (1993) and Gentner and Gentner (1983) considered misconceptions in electricity. These studies all investigated students' difficulties as they interpret new information in light of their existing knowledge. Thus, prior knowledge is not only necessary for further knowledge construction, but also can inhibit such construction or transformation into forms which are considered to be scientifically acceptable.
2.5.3.2 Personal relevance as a component of the personal context on learning Pope and Gilbert (1983) asserted that significant learning is only likely to occur when the information to be learned is perceived by the individual as having personal relevance. This view echoes that of Postman and Weingartner (1971), who claimed that unless learners perceive a problem to be one worth learning, they will not become active, disciplined, and committed to their studies. These claims also have currency in the informal learning environment, where visitors often onlyattend to exhibits of personal interest (Falk & Dierking, 1992).
The view that personal relevance is an important factor related to learning that emerges from experiences in museum settings was exemplifiedby the work of Griffin and Symington (1997) in Sydney, Australia. Their investigation centred on an analysis of teachers' and students' learning-orientated strategies employed in association with fieldtrip visits to museum settings (the Australian Museum and the CSIRO Science Education Centre), at three stages - during field trip preparation, during the field trip, and following the field trip. Both teachers and students were questioned about their perception of the purpose of the field trip. The participants
56 chosen for the study comprised 12 school groups, involving 29 teachers and 735 students in 30 classes ranging from grade 5 to grade 10. Schools included in the study were selected randomly from those that had already made bookings for one of the institutions on days when the researcher was available to gather data. Data were collected through unobtrusive observation and interviews before, during, and two to three weeks afterthe class visits to the museum. Qualitative analysis of the data sets resulted in the emergence of patterns of behaviours and interview responses which placed teachers and students from each school into one of three categories. Category 1 was characterised by an absence of reference either to the tasks or to learning. Category 2 was characterised by emphasis on process such as seeing a particular gallery, or completing a worksheet. Category 3 was characterised by emphasis on outcomes such as finding information, or learning about aspects of a particular topic. The study concluded that teachers used mainly task-orientated teaching practices and strategies more applicable to formal learning environments. Furthermore, the resulting expectations and observed learning behaviours corresponded with teachers' emphasis in linking the topics being studied at school with the students' experiences in the museum setting. These findings are consistent with the views of Anderson (1998), Bitgood (1991, 1989), Javlekar (1989), Lucas (1998), Stoneberg (1981), and Wolin, Jensen and Ulzheimer (1992), who also assert that visits are most effective when linked to current classroom instruction and school curriculum.
2.5.3.3 Th e affe ctive domain as a component of the personal context on learning Science centres have long been renowned as places which have the potential to develop positive affective learning outcomes among their visitors (Dymond, Goodrum, & Kerr, 1990; Flexer & Borun, 1984; Gottfried, 1979, 1980; Kimche, 1978; Lam-Kan, 1985). A study by Finson and Enochs (1987) investigated the effect of a visit to a science and technology museum (the Kansas Cosmosphere and Discovery Center, Hutchinson, KS) and the types of instructional method teachers used in association with their classes visit, on students' attitudes toward science technology-society. ill this instance, 194 year 6, 7, and 8 students participated in a pre-test, post-test control group design study. Three different types of treatment
57 were investigated; structured treatment, which included teachers' use of pre-visit, in visit, and PVAs ; quasi-structured treatment, which included any two of three instructional activities used in the structured approach; unstructured treatment, which did not include any activities. A fourth group served as the control which was characterised by students who did not visit the science centre or participate in associated activities, but received traditional classroom instruction. All students completed a sixty item Scientific Attitudes Inventory (SAl) (Moore & Sutman, 1970). Students in the treatment groups visited the science museum, and all students were later post-tested with the SAl. An analysis of covariance, with pretest scores as the covariate, revealed statistically significant maineff ects for grade level (F=4.65, dJ= 2, p<.05) and instructional treatment (F=2.86, dJ= 3, p<.05). Scheffe post hoc test on these significant main effects revealed that sixth grade students developed more positive attitudes than their seventh (S=3.70, dJ= l,p<.OOl) and eighth (S=1.84, dJ= l, p<.OO I) grade counter parts. Similar tests considering the mean scores of students in the structured (S=1.50, dJ= l, p<.OOI), unstructured (S=1.56, dJ= l, p<.OO I) and quasi-structured (S=2.24, dJ= l, p<.OOI) groups demonstrated that museum experience produced more positive attitudes toward science, technology and society than did those who did not have such experience. Furthermore, groups who experience structured (S=3.06, dJ= l, p<.OOI) or quasi-structured treatment (S=3.94, dJ= l, p<.OOI) in conjunction with their science centre visit, developed more positive attitudes than those who did not receive such treatment. These findings attest to the benefit of some kind of structured experience in enhancing students' museum experiences.
Research by Stronck (1983), who investigated the effects of different types of museum tours on a total of 816 years five, six, and seven students' attitudes and learning outcomes at the British Columbian Provincial Museum, involved two types of guided tours for students: a non-structured and a structured tour. Stronck found that children on more structured tours demonstrated statistically significant gains (p<.001) on eight of ten semi-independent measures of cognitive learning. Stronck explains this through students having the benefit of direct explanation of exhibits
58 through interpreters which the counterparts on non-structured tours did not experience. Furthermore, on the non-structured tours, students exhibited statistically significantly (p<.05)more positive attitudes towards the museum content on three of ten semi-independent measures of attitude.
This brief discussion of the effect of personal context on learning suggests that informal learning environments can influence an individual's personal context, and factors that are a part of an individual's personal context can influence learning outcomes. Also evident from the review of personal context and learning are the importance of attitude and interest, personal relevance, and prior knowledge to the learning processes. Personal relevance and the connectedness of the museum experience to other relevant experiences in the lives of visitors appear to be very influential factors in the types of learning they will experience. Lastly, although the prior knowledge that an individual brings to an experience (in an informal or formal setting) is possibly the most influential factor in relation to subsequent learning, there are very few studies in the fieldof informal learning and museum studies which provide evidence to support this theoretical view. Hence, future studies investigating learning that emerges from experiences in informal settings need to give much greater attention to the influence of prior knowledge in order to make credible assertions about learning products and processes.
2.6 Studies of Knowledge Construction and Learning
It is clear from the studies described in Section 2.5 that context is a very important factor when considering knowledge construction and learning, particularly in informal contexts. A recurring theme of the review thus far has been the lack of studies which provide in-depth analysis of the learning processes which arise from interaction with, and derive from, visitor experiences in informal settings. This is attributable to 1) the types of questions which have prevailed in the field of informal learning and museum studies research to date; 2) the types of research
59 methodologies and methods of analysis which many studies have adopted thus far, which have generally precluded an in-depth examination of learning processes; and 3) the predominance of a epistemological view in the past research which sees learning as merely the acquisition of facts. There are, however, a few studies conducted in recent years which examined learning emergent from informal experience holistically, that is taking a broader view of learning and recognising that learning is often gradual, incremental, and assimilative in nature. These studies recognised that learning not only occurs within the context, but also emerges from the subsequent experiences over extended periods of time.
2.6.1 Extended term learning effects from museum experiences
Few studies have investigated the long term impact of visitors' museum experience, instead focusing on learning that emerges during or only shortly after the experience. Falk and Dierking (1997) investigated the long term impact of school field trips in terms of the effects of the social, physical, and personal contexts of participants, and the subsequent understandings the experiences provided in other experiential contexts. The study employed a qualitative approach in which 128 individuals (34 year four students, 48 year eight students, and 46 adults) were interviewed about their recollections of school field trips to museum settings taken during the early years of their school education. Subjects in the study were asked whether they could recall a school fieldtrip they had taken in their first, second, or third grade; where they went; what grade they were in at the time; how they got there; with whom they went; things they remembered from the fieldtrip ; and whether or not they had thought about the field trip experience in other contexts. Overall, 96% could recall their school field trip experiences, and 79% could supply detailed answers to all the questions asked of them. An analysis of the responses concerning whether or not subjects had subsequently thought about the field trip experience revealed that 79.7% had indeed thought about their experiences, and 73.4% indicated that they had thought about them frequently and were able to provide specific examples. Further, a content analysis of their recollection revealed
60 that 58% of their responses could be classified as pertaining to some specific content or subject matter; 37% related to features of the physical setting; 27% related to feelings; 20% related to social context; 7% food; 4% gift and souvenirs; and 6% diverse responses. The following excerpt is a sample response from a lO-year old girl recalling a second-grade trip to a colonial farm:
I remembered the tomato horn worm again because when we went to the Smithsonian we saw a tomato horn worm in the insect zoo there. Also when I went to the State House [Maryland] I remember there was carvings of tobacco there. (p. 215)
This study suggests that the roles of the social, physical and personal contexts are salient in the transformation of an individual's knowledge. Furthermore, that past experience, in this case experiences in museum-based settings, are frequently recalled and during subsequent experiences provide a basis through which new understandings are developed.
Stevenson (1991) investigated the long-term impact of visitors' interactions with hands-on exhibits at Launch Pad (part of the Science Museum, London). He sought to evaluate whether visitors' memories of the experience were ep isodic (autobiographical information about events in visitors' experiences of the gallery) or semantic (memories resulting from some kind of cognitive processing of evidence gained from experimenting with the interactive exhibits) in nature. To achieve this, Stevenson tracked 20 families within the gallery; interviewed 109 family groups following their gallery visit and followed up with written questionnaires a few weeks following the visit; and interviewed 79 individual family members in their family group six months following the experience. The responses to the questionnaires indicated that 99% of family members had talked to each other or to an absent family member or friend about the experience following the visit. Analysis of the interview data sets six months following the visit revealed that 60% of the personal memories were descriptions of exhibits and how they were used, 26% thoughts about, and reflections on, the science or technology behind an exhibit, and 14% were about the emotional feelings attached to seeing and using an exhibit. Stevenson asserted that
61 the study provided clear evidence of the long-term impact of the Launch Pad experience on visitors. Most visitors could recall, in vivid detail, much of what they did and what happened at various exhibits and furthermore, they were able to describe how they felt and what they thought about their exhibit experiences. He found that a significant number of the memories reported indicated that cognitive processing led to the formation of semantic memories. Visitors also frequently related their experiences to what they already knew or had seen on television.
McManus (1993) investigated the recollections of 28 visitors' experiences of
Gallery33 - A Meeting Ground of Cultures, at the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery, United Kingdom. The study required visitors, of a diversity of ages, to write an essay of their recollections of Gallery33 on an A4 sheet of paper, an average of seven months following the gallery experience. The analysis of the 28 essay accounts yielded 138 individual memories which could be separately identified. Fifty-onepercent of all memories related to objects or things in the gallery; 23% were concerned with episodic events or experiences related to the visit; 15% related to feelings and emotions about the visit; 10% were summarymemories or distilled conclusions arrived at after the earlier experiences and memories had been digested. McManus suggested this last category of memories provides evidence of meta-cognition and processing of memories about the museum experience. However, this is perhaps not so surprising since visitors were asked to recall their museum experience which is, in itself, a meta-cognitive process. The results of this study should be taken with caution, since the 28 participants likely constitute a highly motived group who voluntarily responded to the 136 postal requests sent out from the museum.
Wellington (1990) critiqued the roles of science centres in society and their capacity to influencelearning and knowledge construction. He conjectured that science centres contribute almost exclusively to declarative knowledge, and rarely contribute directly to procedural or contextual knowledge during the course of visitors' experiences in such settings. However, Wellington asserted that while a
62 science centre may not immediately and directly contribute to visitors' procedural and contextual knowledge, visitors' experiences may resurface weeks, months, even years later in other experiences and contexts and may ultimately lead to the development of deep and profound understandings. Such a view is affirmed by Falk and Dierking (1997) and Stevenson (1991), and indeed by the views of the human constructivists expressed in Section 2.4.2.5, in so far as learning and knowledge construction are viewed as being often gradual, incremental, and assimilative in nature and produced through the individual's exposure to successive experiences, which are interpreted in the light of prior understanding.
2.6.2 Knowledge construction emergent from experiences in informal settings
As described in Section 1.1, few researchers have focused on knowledge construction in informal settings from a constructivist perspective (Section 2.4), let alone conducted studies within such a holistic epistemological framework as Lave's (1988). Beiers and McRobbie's (1992) qualitative study focusing on learning in an interactive science centre is one example of a study which differs from the prevalent quantitative methodological approaches of museum studies, which have viewed learning and understanding dichotomously (i.e., learned / not learned or understood / not understood), rather than on a continuum of differing levels. Their study set out to detail incremental changes in students' knowledge of the production and transmission of sound. Structured interviews were used to probe twenty-seven students' knowledge and understanding of science concepts before and after visitation to the Queensland Sciencentre. Following a qualitative analysis of student's interviews, they were grouped into categories of conceptions which reflectedtheir description of the science concepts of sound production and transmission. A comparison of these scales, before and aftervis itation, was made to determine change in cognitive knowledge. It was found that most students' level of cognitive knowledge changed following a visit to the science centre. However, the degree of change was largely dependent upon the level of prior knowledge which the students possessed. Specifically, changes in students' levels of understanding
63 relating to the production of sounds showed that students who already held the concept of sound as a vibration or wave were most likely to have made major changes in their levels of understanding towards the scientifically accepted view. This study's method of measurement of cognitive learning, through qualitative analysis of student interviews and comparative rating of knowledge states, gives a detailed picture of the changes in knowledge which occurred after a visit to a science museum and verified that students do construct new knowledge from such visits. Furthermore, the form of Beiers and McRobbie's research questions should be emulated in future research because they enable greater insight into the changes in knowledge developing with the experiences of the individual.
Feher and Rice conducted a number of studies in the late 1980s (Feher & Rice, 1985; Rice & Feher, 1987; Feher & Rice, 1988; Feher, 1990) that investigated students' understanding and knowledge of the nature and behaviour of light, vision, and shadows following their guided interactions with interactive science centre exhibits at the Reuben Fleet Science Center, San Diego, CA. Their particular interest lay in how intuitive notions that the naive learnerbrings to a situation aid and hinder the acquisition of certain scientific concepts. One study (Feher & Rice, 1985) investigated the mental processes involved in learning through visitors' interaction with a stroboscopic exhibit and a Phenakistacope exhibit, each producing surprising effects by providing definition to blurry moving images with either a strobe light or a moving perforated slit. School students aged 11 to 13 years visiting the science centre were interviewed using a clinical or Piagetian-style interview in which their explanations of the phenomena they encountered in their exhibit experiences were probed. The verbalisation of students' understandings was gauged from the perspective of an "expert" model including an account of the light source, interaction of the light with the objects, and the receptor (eyes and brain). Feher and Rice concluded that the concept that light is a force acting on an object was widely held, while the concept that the eye is a receptor was often absent from students' understandings. Feher and Rice (1988) investigated children's (aged 8 to 13 years) understanding of shadows that are produced on a screen by a cross-shaped light
64 shining on either a large or very small sphere (i.e., a 20 cm ball or a 1 cm bead). By varying the tasks students were asked to perform at the exhibit and interviewing them before, during, and after each task, the researchers were able to identify common misconceptions surrounding particular non-intuitive characteristics of light and shadow. Analyses of students' predictions identified conceptions about light and shadow that could be classified in four different ways, specifically, 1) the light is blocked; 2) the light is deflected; 3) the object projects a shadow; and 4) light pushes the shadow.
A further study conducted by Feher (1990) described research on children's naive conceptions about light and vision. Students, aged 8 to 14 years, were asked to predict, produce, and then explain, using both words and drawings, the effects of various manipulations of light on objects. Two of the exhibits used in the study involved the manipulation of various kinds of light sources (white, coloured, globe-shaped, cross-shaped) on different objects (beads, pinholes, balls in different colours) to elicit students' understandings of both the light and the shadows that were produced. Feher found that the interactive exhibits and the probing nature of the interviews she conducted helped to uncover the nature of students' generally strongly held misconceptions that a shadow is triggered by and moves from the object.
Rice and Feher's (1987) study involving students' predictions and explanation of light passing through apparatus concluded that certain notions necessary to develop correct analytical interpretations of pinhole phenomena were absent from their explanations. This view is akin to Driver et al.'s (1994) views of conceptual trajectories, in which they concluded that certain necessary conceptions need to develop as a prerequisite to the development of higher order understandings. Feher asserted that interactive science museums are optimal sites both for conducting research on people's understanding of scientific concepts and for using the findings to develop exhibits that better support the development of scientific accepted concepts. Furthermore, she described the learning process from an exhibit
65 as an experiential, exploratory, and explanatory process, where the visitors' experience with the exhibit leads to exploration through interaction, with meaning given to that experience through their own interpretation, explanation and prior understandings.
Gottfried (1980) investigated 400 upper elementary school children's learning outcomes from a visit to the Lawrence Hall of Science's Biolab. The Biolab comprised a biology discovery room full of animals and exhibits that allowed visitors to touch animals, conduct experiments using scientific equipment, and make discoveries about animal behaviour, anatomy and physiology. The study used multiple data collection methods including, pre- and post-visit written questionnaires, naturalistic observation of study participants, post-visit recall exercises, and participation in a peer-teaching session. Students' participation in a peer teaching session, two weeks following the visit, involved them teaching a "biology lesson" to a small group of children from another class who had not participated in the field trip. Observation of the students' teaching sessions and analysis of responses to the post-visit questionnaire provided information on the type of facts, skills, and attitudes the students were gaining from their science museum experiences. The analysis of data reveal that students had discovered a wide range of skills during their field trip visit. Of the 400 post-visit questionnaires analysed, the learning outcomes Gottfried identified as being attributable to the museum experience were categorised as follows: facts about animal behaviour, for example, "Snakes put their tongues out to smell" (n=297); facts about animal anatomy, for example, "The iguana has spikes on his skin" (n=143); understandings of "how to ...," for example, "How to pick up a snake" (n=118); reflections about self, for example, "I'm not scared of animals" (n=15); and miscellaneous (n=27). This study is somewhat supporting of Wellington's (1990) comments in Section 2.6.1, that science museums contribute to declarative knowledge. However, Gottfried's study provided supporting evidence that museum experiences are able to contribute to procedural and contextual knowledge. Gottfried concludes that the peer teaching sessions demonstrated that students could make use of the knowledge that they
66 acquired during the field trip. Thus, the study also provided supporting evidence that follow-up activities, such as peer teaching, enable students to reflect recontextualise, and reinforce their own knowledge and understandings constructed from museum experiences.
The studies of Beiers and McRobbie (1992), Feher and Rice (1985), Rice and Feher (1987), Feher and Rice (1988), Feher (1990), and Gottfried (1980) support several important facets about learning research in museums. First, they support and strongly reaffirmmany of the studies detailed in Section 2.5, in so far as they more strongly support that learning and knowledge construction does arise from museum based experiences. Second, they support the view that qualitative research methodologies are fruitful when investigating learning, enabling insight into the changes in knowledge developing with the experiences of the individual (Falk & Dierking, 1992; Rennie & McClafferty, 1996). Third, Beiers and McRobbie's and Feher and Rice's studies strongly support the effect of prior knowledge on subsequent learning. Moreover, they emphasise the need for future research in this area to consider carefully the influencethat this has on knowledge construction emerging from museum experiences. Finally, Gottfried's study provides some tentative evidence of the learning potential of post-visit experiences - an issue which will be explored further in Section 2.7.
2.6.3 Knowledge construction emergent from formal contexts
Despite the relative lack of studies which examine the knowledge construction process in informal contexts in a detailed fashion, many studies have examined such processes arising from learners' experiences in formal contexts (Wandersee et aI., 1994).
A study by Persall et al. (1997) examined successive and progressive changes in the structural complexity of knowledge held by 161 (68 science majors, 93 non science majors) introductory, college-level biology students. The study required
67 students to generate concept maps of their understandings of cell biology on four occasions (one every four weeks) over the course of the one semester unit. The concept maps were scored (Novak & Gowin, 1984) for frequency of concepts, relationships, hierarchies, branching, and cross links. Additionally, the maps were scored for incidents of restructuring (a radical process in which new knowledge necessitates the construction of a substantially new conceptual framework), tuning (a process in which an existing framework is largely unchanged by new knowledge but constraints are placed which affect the accuracy and applicability of the framework),
and accretion (a process equivalent to addition - cf. Section 2.4.2.3) as suggested by Rumelhart and Norman (1978). The scores were then analysed for changes that occurred over time, and effects of independent variables such as learning mode (rote or meaningful) and gender. Persall et al. (1997) concluded that within the span of a one-semester college level science experience, a substantial amount of knowledge restructuring occurs. Consistent with the human constructivist view, much of this learning appears to be incremental in nature, and that accretion and tuning, together account for some 75% or more of the observed structural changes. Furthermore, radical restructuring produced through superordinate learning appears to occur more frequently in the first half of the semester. This was the case particularly with students who were science majors, where it was concluded that 50% of radical restructuring occurred in the first four weeks of the course.
A study by Shymansky, Woodworth, Norman, Dunkhase, Matthews, and Liu (1993) investigated the change in understanding of 48 grade 4 to 9 teachers' conceptions across 10 science topics including life, earth, and the physical sciences. The context was an in-service course designed to help teachers improve their science teaching skills. Teachers generated concept maps of their scientificunderstanding on three occasions over the six month in-service program. Analysis of the concept maps showed that teachers held initially numerous misconceptions, but also demonstrated a significant growth in the number of valid propositions expressed by them between the initial and final maps in all topic groups. However, in half of the topic groups, the growth was interrupted by a noticeable decline in the number of
68 valid propositions expressed in teachers' maps after an initial increase in conceptual understanding was noted. Furthermore, analysis of individual maps showed distinctive patterns of initial invalid conceptions being replaced by new invalid conceptions in subsequent mapping. Shymansky et al. explain this in terms of teachers developing deeper understandings of the topics. They attempted to extend their maps to the limits of their own understandings of the topics. As the conceptual boundaries were extended, new misconceptions formed. They concluded that both regression and the appearance of new misconceptions may in fact have been a signal of major conceptual growth. Hynd, Alvermann, and Qian (1993) found similar changes in conceptual growth of pre-service elementary school teachers. The exchange of one misconception for another, and relinquishment of non-scientific conceptions and the adoption of new ones, were noted throughout their study. However, a study by Shymansky, Yore, Treagust, Thiele, Harrison, Waldrip, Stocklmayer, and Venville (1997), which examined twenty-two year 10 students' conceptual understanding and conceptual growth about classical mechanics, did not detect such changes. Using student-generated concept maps with follow-up interviews sampled on four occasions over fourteen weeks, their analysis suggested that students' knowledge structures remained "stable", that is, retaining at least one misconception on successive data collections, over the course of 10 weeks and then their conceptual growth remained unchanged four weeks afterthe conclusion of classroom-based instruction. Shymansky et al. suggested that very little construction or restructuring of know ledge was taking place, or possibly that students' existing knowledge was not challenged sufficientlyby the instruction to promote the construction or reconstruction processes.
Hewson and Hewson (1980) investigated the changes in the understanding of one graduate tutor of freshman physics on three occasions over the course of 18 weeks in relation to the topic of special relativity. Consistent with the conceptual change model of learning (Section 2.4.2.4), their findings support the notion that prior understandings and beliefs strongly influence subsequent development of knowledge. In the case of the graduate tutor, his adherence to metaphysical
69 commitments played a very significant role in the way he understood the complexities of special relativity. This adherence constituted an unidentifiedbarrier to greater understanding of the topic and until such times as the nature of the barrier was revealed to the individual, he saw an alternative view as being implausible, and was thus unable to incorporate satisfactorily such new ideas into his overall understanding of the topic.
These studies attest to the incremental nature of knowledge construction and also the dynamic processes of meaning making, which often results in the development of knowledge in unpredictable ways, on many occasions inconsistent with the intentions of the designers and implementers of the teaching/learning programs. The evidence of these studies also suggests that knowledge does not simply increase in some kind of direct proportional way with experiences, but rather develops idiosyncratically, progressing and sometimes appearing to regress when compared with accepted views of contemporary science.
2.7 Post-Visit Activity and Informal Learning Experiences
Over the last 20 years, research into the learning of school children associated with informal settings, such as science museums, has focused on pre-visit and during-visit activities. Bitgood (1989) claimed that follow-up activities are an oftenneglected opportunity to consolidate museum fieldtrip experiences, and that he could findno studies which investigated the effects of post-fieldtrip activities on students' learning. A review of the literature largely affirmedBi tgood's assertion. Although not exclusively focused on PVAs, the research findings of Anderson (1994), Finson and Enoch (1987), Gottfried (1980), Koran, Lehman, Shafer, and Koran (1983), Stoneberg (1981), and Wolins et al. (1992) do provide some insights into the effects of such activities or experiences.
70 In Anderson's (1994) study, discussed previously in Section 2.5.2, seventy fiveju nior secondary school students visited a science museum and were later tested for cognitive gains about the science concepts portrayed in the museum. In addition, they were asked to nominate the exhibits which they considered interesting and puzzling. It was found that those exhibits which were nominated as being interesting and puzzling were also the most memorable for the students, and the ones from which cognitive learning was most likely to be derived. Further, there was a suggestion that the most memorable exhibits were those which employed a diversity of sensory modes during the course of normal interaction and were prominent in terms of their physical size and location within the exhibit gallery. Conversely, the least memorable exhibits employed few sensory modes, were physically obscure, and apparently produced little cognitive change compared with other exhibits. It may be that some of these less memorable exhibits convey concepts and information which could be considered of value to students in the scope of the formal studies of science. Given this likelihood, Anderson asserted that it would be prudent to attempt to address students' low level of recall of exhibits which lacked a diversity of employed sensory modes and were not physically prominent. This could be achieved through students' participation in classroom-based PVAs which require students to reflect on their experiences during the field trip, with special emphasis on more obscure exhibits.
Although not directly related to PVA, the Koran et al. (1983) study, involving 28 seventh and eighth grade students, considered the cognitive learning benefits of the location of an information panel on a walk-through exhibit. Two conditions were considered: information panel at the start of a walk-through exhibit (pre-treatment) or at the exit (post-treatment). The results of post-test scores indicated that both pre and post-attention treatments improved learning, with the pre attention treatment being somewhat more effective. Koran et al argued that a pre treatment served to cue students to what to expect, and to focus attention on important features of the exhibits, while a post-treatment stimulated memory of the exhibit, resulting in the retrieval of a wide variety of information. Teachers might
71 facilitate a similar process by class participation in related PV A, discussions, questionnaires, or other concept-related activities which cue students to a divergent search of memory of the exhibits encountered on the field trip. Class discussions might pool the group experience of these exhibits, causing new concepts which were not previously considered by students to be incorporated successfully into their cognitive frameworks, and providing new perspectives and better understanding from exhibits which initially may have been deemed non-interesting and/or non puzzling.
A study reported by Wolins et al. (1992) focused on the recall of school field trips to a number of museum settings by eight to nine year old students over a two year period. The research was designed to determine how well children would remember a novel episode (an event which occurred on the field trip) of a reasonably familiar event (going on a fieldtrip) over time. The study involved two groups of 10 children. In the firstyear, 10 children visited 11 museums on 17 occasions, and in the second year, 10 children visited 6 museums on 12 separate occasions. The researchers interviewed the children four times over the course of a year: prior to the field trip visit, immediately afterreturning to school, at six weeks, and finally one year afterthe event. The findings of the research indicated that a combination of variables affected recall of novel episodes. However, there were three common variables in the children's experience that seemed to correlate highly with recall. First, those students who recalled the most had experienced a high degree of personal involvement (both positive and negative) with both pre-visit and PVA based class lessons, that is, peer teaching. Second, while on the museum visit, students were provided links with the curriculum; specifically, the teacher enriched the unit with many varied classroom activities relevant to their museum experiences. Finally, students experienced multiple or repeat visits to the same institution.
Stoneberg (1981) investigated the effectiveness of pre-visit, on-site, and post visit zoo activities. The study employed an experimental-control group design and a quantitative analysis using ANOV A statistics to determine the effectiveness of
72 curricular materials produced by the Minnesota Zoological Gardens (MZG) in promoting cognitive achievement and positive environmental attitudes among sixth grade students. The curricular materials were developed in conjunction with the University of Minnesota staff, zoo naturalists, zoo educators, and teachers on three topics which complemented the MZG's organisational theme - Exploring Minnesota. The developed materials contained concept and performance objectives, pre-visit, on-site, and PVAs, pre-visit and post-visit tests, a vocabulary list, media resource list and evaluation forms. Fifty-two schools, randomly selected from a pool of schools volunteering to participate in the study, were stratifiedinto three groups based upon the location - urban Minneapolis, suburban Minneapolis, and rural regions of Minnesota. This provided a total of 1,856 students who participated in the study. Four instructional treatments were administered to classes of students in each of the participating schools in the sample. Treatment 1 consisted of participation in three types of learning activities - written pre-visit activities which were conducted within the classroom prior to a zoo visit, an on-site learning excursion at the zoo, and written PVAs completed back in the classroom after the zoo visit. Treatment 2 consisted of an on-site learning excursion alone, in which students were guided through the Minnesota exhibit by a docent who followed a prescribed dialogue and none of the pre-visit or post-visit classroom activities were used. Treatment 3 consisted of completion of pre-visit and PV As without participation in an on-site learning excursion between the two sets of classroom learning activities. Treatment 4, a control, included participation in none of the zoo activities mentioned above until after all post-tests were given. At that time, classes in treatments 3 and 4 attended a learning excursion in the Minnesota exhibit and visited other parts of the zoo in free choice interaction. In addition to the location of schools, numerous other independent variables were investigated in the study including type of school (public/ private), time of zoo visit (morning/ afternoon), educational background of teachers, years of teaching experience of teachers, gender of teachers, number of previous visit students had to the zoo. These were cross-tabulated with dependent measures such as a cognitive pre-test and post-test, and pre and post-visit attitudes surveys. With the exception of a few instances, most interactions proved not to be
73 significant. However, there was a statistically significant (p<.05)interaction between treatment type and students' cognitive gains. Students who were exposed to treatments 1 and 3 significantly outperformed students receiving treatments 2 and 4. Thus participating in related classroom activities was essential in obtaining the greatest cognitive gains for sixth grade students. Although it is affirming to note the evidence that pre- and post-visit activities provide increases in cognitive and affective gains, the study seems to be deficient in a number of ways. First, the nature and characteristics of the written classroom-based pre- and post-visit activities were poorly described, and, hence, present difficulties in evaluating the validity of the cognitive and affective measures against these experiences. Second, there is no differentiation between the emerging positive gains resulting from the pre-visit and post-visit experiences, thus it is not known, or at least reported, the degree to which the pre- or post-visit activities were responsible for the reported gains. Finally, the study revealed little about the nature of the cognitive and affective gains in so far as how, and in what ways, students' knowledge had changed. Stoneberg, as part of her concluding remarks, asserted that teachers should strive to embed the field trip experience within the context of their teaching curriculum to improve the overall impact of the experience.
Finson and Enoch's (1987) study, discussed previously in Section 2.5.3.3, which investigated the effect of a visit to a science and technology museum on year 6, 7, and 8 students' attitudes toward science-technology-society, also considered the effect of teachers' planned, field trip-related activities on students' scientific attitudes. Finson and Enock concluded that teachers who had made efforts to plan activities for their class museum visitation, either pre-visit, in-visit, or PV As, or some combination of these, had their efforts reflectedin significantly higher class means and students' post-test scores on the Scientific Attitudes Inventory (SAl). However, similar to Stoneberg's (1981) report, Finson and Enoch's study provided no differentiation between the emerging positive gains and possible links with the pre-visit, in-visit, or PVAs. In addition, the study revealed little about the nature of
74 the affective gains in so far as how, and in what ways, students' attitudes had changed.
Gottfried's (1980) study, described in Section 2.6.2, considered the student peer teaching exercise as one of his multi-method data collection strategies. However, it is obvious that the act of getting students to peer-teach on topics relating to their recent museum experiences is also a form of PV A. In the case of Gottfried's study, data suggest that the peer teaching experience was effective in allowing students to reflect,recontextua lise, and reinforce their own knowledge and understandings constructed from museum experiences.
In reviewing the small number of studies which consider the role and effect of PVAs on learning, there remains a considerable lack of understanding of how such experiences contribute to the knowledge construction and reconstruction processes of learning and meaning making. Furthermore, in neither of the studies previously described, nor the museum or learning literature were there mentioned principles or criteria for the development of PV A experiences which might further the understandings developed from museum-based experiences.
2.8 Summary
The review of the literature discussed in this chapter can be summarised as follows. First, historically speaking, constructivist paradigms have emerged from the traditions of the cognitivist and situated learning views. The key tenets of the paradigm centre on the individual as the constructor of his or her own knowledge and understandings. Thus, the development of knowledge and understanding are achieved through the processes of learning, which are complex and are influencedby a myriad of factors dynamically mediated by the learner's personal, social, and physical contexts. Studies reviewed in the chapter also support the key tenets of the constructivist paradigm as detailed in Section 2.4, and summarised in Section 2.4.3.
75 Second, the reviewed literature demonstrates that, while there is a growing body of research emerging from the fields of informal learning and museum studies, very little attention has been directed toward investigating the processes of learning emergent from visitors' experiences in informal settings. This is a result of several factors including the facts that: I) most studies have considered the impact of certain variables in the informal setting merely using measures of learning as the dependent variable; 2) measures of learning have been somewhat global in their dimension and merely seek to demonstrate that there were changes in learning as a result of differential intervention, rather than to define the nature of such changes; 3) the types of methodologies and methods of analysis that such studies have employed were largely quantitative in nature employing multiple choice tests and inferential statistics to demonstrate significant effects; and 4) there has been a predominant epistemological view in the past research which sees learning as merely the acquisition of facts, rather than gradual, incremental, and assimilative growth in knowledge interpreted in the light of prior knowledge and understanding. Of the few studies in the informal learning literature which do focus their attention on visitor learning, little work has been directed towards examining the actual processes of learning from a constructivist perspective. Consequently, little is known about the nature of learning resulting from museum-based experiences.
Third, although the prior knowledge that an individual brings to an experience (in an informal or formal setting) is possibly the most influential factor in relation to subsequent learning, there is a considerable lack of studies in the field of informal learning and museum studies which provide evidence to support this sound theoretic view. Hence, future studies investigating learning emergent from experiences in informal settings need to give much greater attention to the influence of prior knowledge in order to make credible assertions about learning products and processes.
Fourth, while research studies in the area of learning are increasingly recognising that the processes of learning and knowledge construction are often
76 gradual, incremental, and assimilative in nature, there are relatively few museum based studies which assume a long-term view of learning. Most conceptualise and attempt to measure learningoutcomes merely as a result of the museum experience to the exclusion of other subsequent life events and experiences the individual makes meaning of in the light of such museum experiences, in the weeks, months, and years following their visit. To this end, it is important that future research of learning emergent from museum experiences recognises the tenets of the human constructivist paradigm and consider learning from the extended term perspective as described by studies in Section 2.6.1.
Fifth, the effectiveness of PV As following museum visits remains largely unexplored. Although a very small number of studies that consider the role and effect of PVAs on learning exist, there remains a considerable lack of understanding of how such experiences contribute to the knowledge construction and reconstruction processes of learning and meaning making. Moreover, the principles or criteria for the development of PV A experiences which might further the understandings developed from museum-based experiences are not expressed in any place in the learning or museum-based literature. Research that provides such criteria and theory-based validation of those principles is needed.
Finally, it should be emphasised that informal learning centres such as science museums do not set out to provide instruction that will substitute for teachers in formal classrooms. However, teachers taking students to a science museum or similar institution should arguably have learning objectives for their students to achieve through participation in the activities. The employment of staff education officers by many informal learning institutions provides clear acknowledgment of the expectations of teachers. Education officers typically provide advice and teaching resources related to the preparation for, and conduct of a planned visit of students to their institution. Advice and activities relating to the post-visit period are sometimes provided but there is little follow-through and little evidence suggesting that such activities are utilised. It seems entirely plausible from
77 the constructivist learning framework described in Sections 1.2 and 2.4, that follow up activities, such as class discussions, questionnaires, research, and experimentation, might be beneficial to the cognitive learning process. However, the form and potential of such follow-up activities remain unsubstantiated and thus this is an important area for research. The research described in the following chapters represents a deliberate move in this area of research.
78 Chapter Three
Methodology, Methods, and Procedure
3.1 Introduction
From the review of the literature of the previous chapter, it is clear that there are several areas in the fields of learning and museum studies which are under researched, in particular, the processes of learning resulting from museum-based experiences; the role of prior knowledge in learning resulting from museum experiences; the criteria for design of post-visit activity (PV A) experiences; and effects of PVA experiences on subsequent learning. As a result of these deficiencies in the literature, combined with the evidence of teacher practices which do not adequately capitalise on their own students' museum-based experiences, some questions emerged as being worthy of investigation. These can be summarised as follows:
1. What principles and criteria for the development of educationally effective PV As, consistent with a constructivist theory of learning, would be appropriate to support students' museum-based learningexperienc es?
2. How do students construct knowledge and understanding resulting from museum-based experiences?
3. How do students construct knowledge and understanding resulting from classroom-based PV A experiences in the light of recent museum-based experiences?
Chapter Three details the methodology, research methods, and procedure used to provide insight into these emergent questions, in the light of the
79 epistemological stance adopted in Chapter One and the current theoretical background of the literature detailed in Chapter Two.
3.2 Research Objectives
The research objectives for this study were not only crafted in a way which addresses the issues emergent from the literature, but also were contextualised within the epistemological framework of the researcher. Two assumption were critical to consider in this study. First, the researcher believes that individuals have their own unique constructions of the world, which they have personally constructed through experience contextualised in the light of their own existing knowledge, which was in turn constructed as a result of past experiences. These knowledge construction processes are oftengradual, incremental, and assimilative in nature. Second, learning is influenced not only by the factors which are inherent to the individual, such as motivation, interest, beliefs, values, and prior knowledge, but also by the social and physical context in which individuals are situated and the experiences they have in those contexts. It was the view of the researcher that the informal setting of a science centre provided visitors with experiences which are potentially rich in social interaction, a physical environment which is stimulating to the senses, and the free choice to attend exhibits which are of personal interest to them. For these reasons, the science centre context appeared to be an appropriate setting, which could provide students with rich learning experiences that could be examined. Furthermore, these experiences were regarded as ones which would provide a salient backdrop against which subsequent PV A experiences could be investigated. Since no extensive, theory-based principles for the development of post-visit activities have been described in the literature, one of the important objectives of this study was to establish such development criteria in preparation for the main study. In specific terms, the study aimed:
80 (A) to describe and interpret students' scientific knowledge and understandings of electricity and magnetism:
1. prior to a visit to a science centre, ii. following a visit to a science centre, iii. following post-visit activities related to their science centre experiences.
(B) to describe and interpret the processes by which students constructed their scientific knowledge and understandings of electricity and magnetism:
1. prior to a visit to a science centre,
11. following a visit to a science centre,
111. following post-visit activities related to their science centre experiences
In order to achieve objectives (A) and (B) a necessary objective was to develop the principles for post-visit activity design, specifically:
(C) to develop a set of principles for the development of post-visit activities from a constructivist framework (Section 2.4) which could facilitate and enhance students' learning of science.
Upon completion of the study of students' learning the final objective was addressed, namely:
(D) to review and refine the set of principles for the development of post-visit activities in the light of the findings of the main study.
As previously stated in Section 1.4, the main focus of this naturalistic study was on student learning, from a visit to a science centre. Because PVAs are not routinely utilised in such circumstances, principles for their development and use were developed as an integral part of the study.
81 3.3 Research Methodology
3.3.1 Differentiating methodology and method
At the outset, it is important to define and differentiate the terms "research methodology" and "research method," since there is often a lack of consistency between the nomenclatures (Taylor, 1997). "Research methodology" refers to the research design, including its foundations, assumptions, limitations, and characteristic procedures and outcomes. However, "research methods" refer to the specific strategies, instruments and procedures employed in the procurement, analysis and reporting of data within the scope of the research methodology (Taylor, 1997; Burgess, 1984). This distinction was used in designing and describing this study.
3.3.2 The epistemological location of the study
Drawing upon the previously outlined epistemological framework and the review of the literature, this section details and summarises the epistemological and philosophical location of this study as defined by the following perspectives: First, the study adopts a perspective similar to that of Staver (1998), discussed in Section 2.3, who suggested that the primary difference between radical and social constructivism lies in their foci of study. In radical constructivism, the focus is cognition and the individual, while with social constructivism, the focus is language and the group. In so far as there is a dichotomy expressed by the views of Staver, this study's focus lies more with "cognition and the individual," but recognises the great importance of "language and the group" in the construction of knowledge. Second, through the perspectives of the situated learning paradigm, discussed in Sections 1.2.1 and 2.2, this study also subscribes to the views that learning is strongly influenced bythe contexts in which the individual is situated. According to Falk and Dierking (1992), these contexts can be broadly defined as the social, physical, and personal, and it is the interaction of these dimensions which determines the type, amount and saliency of learning. Third, through the human constructivist
82 perspective, discussed in Section 2.4.2.5, this study regards the processes of knowledge building as gradual, incremental, and assimilative in nature. It is through the individual's exposure to subsequent experiences, which are interpreted in the light of prior understanding, that changes in conceptual understanding are produced. The cognitive structure of an individual is thus dynamic and in a continual state of construction as new experiences are encountered and interpreted by the learner.
These guiding perspectives may be regarded as lenses through which a researcher sees and interprets the world. In this sense they are regarded by the researcher to be empowering perspectives which facilitate the observation and interpretation of the characteristics and nature of learning in ways which could not ordinarily be seen without the aid of such a lens. Greater clarity and scope of observed characteristics and regarding the nature of learning could arguably be gained though the use of multiple perspectives, each view providing the power to see attributes which may not be possible through other differing perspectives. As was suggested in Section 2.3, various paradigmatic perspectives or views, while different in their approach, may be equally plausible in the context of a particular problem, and thus the adoption of a particular set of perspectives is entirely dependent on the research questions which are to be addressed. In the context of this research, the three aforementioned views are not independent of one another, but rather, are perspectives which mutually enhance the interpretation of the nature and character of learning. It is through the use of these combined perspectives that the detailed investigation of student learning will be most effectively viewed.
Figure 3.1a depicts a representation of the location of this study through the situated learning and constructivism paradigm lenses, and in particular, the location of social and radical constructivism views, and the social, personal, and physical contextual views of situated learning. The researcher argues for the perspective of Staver (1998), in so far that there exists large overlaps between the key tenets of social and radical constructivism. The rounded blue rectangle on the right side of Figure 3.1a shows a quasi-defined region which encapsulates and represents the
83 tenets of radical constructivism and its focus on cognition and the individual, while the light blue rounded rectangle on the left side of the figure represents that quasi defined region which encapsulates and represents the tenets of social constructivism and its focus on language and the group. Important in the representation is the fact that there exists much in common between the views; the chief differences, as suggested by Staver, lie in their foci of study, which ultimately lead to substantive differences in direction and questions for study. Figure 3.1a also shows that, in the eyes of the researcher, these views are related to each of the three contextual domains of learning in the situated learning paradigm. Each view recognises and values the interdependent roles of all three contexts in the learning process, however, in the case of radical constructivism greater interest lies with the interplay of physical and personal contexts, and in the case of social constructivism, greater interests lies with the interplay between personal and social contexts.
Figure 3.1b builds upon Figure 3.1a by showing how an additional perspective, that of human constructivism, can aid the overall interpretation of learning processes in combination with a radical and social constructivist view and a situated learning perspective. The human constructivist lens permits the researcher to focus on the nature of the processes of learning as outlined by its key tenets in Section 2.4.2.5. Figure 3.1b depicts the broad location of the study by identifying the characteristics of the combined three perspectives represented by the large dotted oval. Although this figure represents these three perspectives, the focus of the researcher's attention changes within the confines of this quasi-defined region, in so far as there were occasions when it was more appropriate to focus attention on particular areas within these paradigmatic views. For example, when considering students' conservations during the free choice interaction at the Sciencentre, interpretation was best served through a social constructivist view with attention toward the personal and social contexts, as defined by the small oval towards the left of Figure 3.1b. However, when probing students about their experiences with the exhibits, interpretation would be best served through a radical constructivist view with attention toward the personal and physical contexts, denoted by the small oval on the right side of Figure 3.1 b
84 Personal Context
Physical Context
Social Context
Social Radical Constructivism Constructivism Constructivist Paradigm
Figure 3. 1 a - Epistemological location of the study - Relationship between situated learning paradigm and constructivist paradigm.
Personal Context
Physical Context
Social Context
Social Radical Constructivism Constructivism
Figure 3. 1 b - Epistemological location of the study - View of Figure 3.1a through human constructivist lens.
85 In summary, the research argues that the quality of the interpretation of the nature and character of learning is enhanced through the view of multiple perspectives. The three perspectives outlined have been definedwithin the context of this study's objectives to optimise the power of the overall interpretation of students' learning processes and are succinctly summarised by the representation of Figure 3.1b.
3.3.3 The methodology
The selection of an appropriate research methodology and methods was determined by the nature of the questions which the study sought to answer. It was the view of the researcher that methodology and methods are not value laden quantities in themselves, but rather should be considered as being appropriate or inappropriate in the context of the study and research questions in which they serve. This study employs a qualitative methodology, specifically an interpretive case study approach which is appropriate to investigate and understand the nature of students' construction of knowledge following a science centre experience and the subsequent participation in related classroom-based, PV As.
Qualitative research is commonly thought of as a method, a program, or a set of procedures for designing, conducting, and reporting research (Bogdar & Bikler, 1982). However, Lincoln and Guba (1985), see it " ... definednot at the level of method, but at the level of paradigm" (p. 250). At the level of paradigm, qualitative research is different from quantitative research in terms of their respective underlying epistemologies. That is, they differ in basic assumptions about how researchers derive "the truth," the purpose of inquiry, the roles of the researcher, and what constitutes evidence (Lancy, 1993). Furthermore, quantitative designs commonly seek out a relationship between a small number of variables, while qualitative designs typically orientate to cases or phenomena, seeking patterns of unanticipated as well as expected relationships (Stake, 1995, p. 41). To this end, qualitative methodologies are ideal for phenomena that are complex, and about
86 which little is known or understood, such as the investigation of learning. Qualitative researchers seek to make interpretations of their collected data, exercising subjective judgements, analysing and synthesising, all the while being conscious of their own prejudices and views of the world. Perhaps one of the key criticisms of qualitative research is the fact that it is subjective in nature and relies on the interpretations of the researcher. However, from the epistemological and ontological view of the researcher, this should not be seen as a failing, but, rather, an essential element of understanding.
According to Erickson (1986), the most distinctive characteristic of qualitative inquiry is its emphasis on interpretation. Stake (1995) asserted that:
In designing our studies, we qualitative researchers do not confine interpretation to the identification of variables and the development of instruments before data gathering and to analysis and interpretationfor the report. Rather, we emphasise placing an interpreterin the fieldto observe the working of the case, one who records objectively what is happening but simultaneously examines its meanings and redirects observations to refine or substantiate those meanings. Initially research questions may be modified or even replaced in mid-study by the case researcher. The aimis to thoroughly understand [the case]. If early questions are not working, if new issues become apparent, the design is changed. (pp. 8-9)
Parlett and Hamilton (1976) refer to such change throughout the course of a study as progressivejocusing, while Guba and Lincoln (1989) refer to the process as a herrneneutic cycle. The hermeneutic cycle is definedby a series of cycles of data gathering, analysis and interpretation, each informing and shaping the next, and is characterised by the repeated feeding back of researcher perceptions to the participants in the study for the purposes of checking, elaborating and modifying at key stages in the progress of the research. Indeed, one of the key strengths of such a research methodology is its flexibilityto change direction in response to the progressive collection and analysis of data.
In further definingthe methodology of this study, one must confront the realisation that a qualitative methodology, which is required by the research
87 questions, necessitates a detailed and thorough examination of students' knowledge and understanding on multiple occasions. This realisation necessitates that there are cases to be examined and that the number of cases must be realistically small because of the limits of time, money, and the complexities of investigating learning. Stake (1995) regards qualitative case study in a way which is consistent with the situated learning, epistemological stance of the researcher:
In qualitative case study, we seek greater understanding of e, the case. We want to appreciate the uniqueness and complexity of e [the case], its embeddedness and interaction with its context. (p. 16)
Stake makes a distinction between three types of case study - 'Intrinsic,' 'Instrumental,' and 'Collective.' Intrinsic case arises where the investigation of the case is given and there are no other options but to study a specific case. In this instance, the study of the case is conducted, not because generalisations can be made from investigation, but because there is a need to know more about the case itself. Instrumental case arises when the research questions require understanding about more than a specific case. Instrumental case studies are often used when the outcomes are hoped to provide more generalis able understandings. Collective cases are regarded as a form of instrumental case study in which more than one case is instrumental in providing generalisable understandings. Stake makes the point that, while case study research is not sampling research and is problematic in substantiating grand generalisations about the world, it is powerful in refining accepted generalisations or providing evidence where accepted generalisations do not apply. In this particular research study, a collective case study was used to investigate students' construction of knowledge.
The research methodology adopted is appropriate for the following reasons. First, an interpretive strategy is suitable, since neither the processes of knowledge construction, nor the details of the learning products, are well understood. Second, the epistemology of the researcher asserts that an individual's knowledge construction cannot be entirely predictable, discrete, or result in a single outcome which can be fully definedprior to, or as a result of such an experience, therefore an
88 interpretive methodology is entirely appropriate. Third, the research objectives (Section 3.2) require a series of cycles of data gathering, analysis and interpretation, each informing and shaping the next - a hermeneutic cycle strategy (Erickson, 1986; Guba & Lincoln2, 1989). Fourth, while it is hoped that the interventions that the students experience will cause their knowledge to change in ways consistent with accepted scientific understanding, the exact nature of such changes are uncertain. Hence, a descriptive interpretative strategy is appropriate. Finally, while this study is set within a theoretical framework of constructivism (See section 2.4.3), the details of such theory(ies), in terms of how people construct their knowledge, are not entirely understood. To this end, this study seeks to provide evidence which will both confirmand refinethis theory. Consequently a collective case study was appropriate.
3.4 Research Methods
This study contains three stages: Stage One - The development of principles for the design of educationally-effective, classroom-based, PV As supporting students' museum-based experiences; Stage Two - A pilot study to test proposed methods and data-gathering strategies relating to student construction of knowledge; and Stage Three - The interpretation of Stage One: Principles for Development and students' construction of knowledge from a Design of Post-Visit Activities visit to a science centre and the subsequent participation in related PV As. Stages One and Stage Two: Pilot Study - Data Collection and Analysis Two helped inform and support Stage Three, and the outcomes of Stage Three provided feedback and supported the refinementof the Stage Three: Main Study - Students' Construction of Knowledge initial propositions of Stage One. Figure 3.2 shows the inter-relationships between the Figure 3.2. The inter-relationships between Stages One, Two, & Three stages of the study.
This process was not strictly 4th Generation Evaluation (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) - Refer to Section 3.4 for details of the interpretation processes used.
89 The research objectives of the study, stated in Section 3.2, were realised through the interlinking stage-structure detailed in Figure 3.1. Research objective CC) was achieved through Stage One. Research objectives CA) and CB) were accomplished through Stages Two and Three, while objective CD) was realised subsequent to the completion of Stage Three as the outcomes were reviewed in the light of the outcomes of Stage One.
The purpose of Stage One was to establish principles for the design of educationally-effective, classroom-based, PV As supporting students' museum-based experiences. In 1995, the Reuben Fleet Science Center CRFSC), in San Diego, California, was one of a small but growing number of institutions of its kind attempting to develop PVAs for its visitors. During the period September through December 1995, the researcher developed a series of seventeen PVAs for the RFSC's new Signals exhibition - a National Science Foundation CNSF) supported, thematic exhibition about signals and signal processing. These activities were based on a set of principles formulated by the researcher as part of the development task. The principles for the design of PVAs supporting visitors' museum-based experiences were established as a product of 1) the researcher's immersion in the science centre environment, 2) the actual task of developing the Signals PVAs, and 3) his close association with the RFSC staff during the development process. Stage One was a vitally important stage in the research for several reasons. First, at the time of this study, no extensive theory-based principles for the design and development of such activities had been elaborated either by RFSC or in the literature. To this end, such principles needed to be developed, given that the effect of student participation in PVAs experiences was an integral part of the planned research. Second, establishing the principles for the development of educationally effective PVAs supported the trustworthiness of Stage Three of the research investigating the role of PV As in knowledge construction. Third, the immersion experience provided the researcher with valuable insights which clarified the research objectives for the main study.
90 Stage Two was a pilot study in which the research methods were piloted with a group of Year 7 students in a metropolitan state primary school in Brisbane, Australia. The pilot study provided an opportunity to fieldtest the methods prior to the main study, which comprised Stage Three, and included testing of the concept mapping techniques, semi-structured interview protocols, scheduling protocols, knowledge representation strategies, and student selection techniques.
Stage Three employed an interpretive collective case study approach, probing students' understanding of electricity and magnetism in three phases of the study: prior to the science centre visit, immediately afterthe science centre visit, and after completion of the PV As associated with the exhibits encountered during the science centre visit. Students' understandings were probed using a combination of a concept mapping exercise (Novak, 1977) and probing, semi-structured follow-up interviews, designed to reveal and interpret students' knowledge and understanding related to magnetism and electricity. In addition, the probing interviews sought to reveal the experiential events by which students became cognisant of their knowledge.
Consistent with an interpretive approach, the researcher attempted to avoid presumptions about students' knowledge and understandings and how these would transform over the course of the investigation. Each of the three phases of the main study (pre-visit, post-visit, and post-activity) were stages through which the researcher could reflecton the data gathered and the types of questions being asked of students. Upon reflection, questions in subsequent phases could be modified where necessary in ways which the researcher believed to be more fruitful in revealing and interpreting student knowledge and understanding of electricity and magnetism. The processes of reflection,interpreta tion, and modification of the probing questions also occurred within the phases during the course of interviews with students, as the researcher pursued more fruitful lines of questioning as the interviews progressed. In this view, the methodology was consistent with Guba and Lincoln's (1989) hermeneutic cycle approach. However, the approach differed from the strict definition of Guba and Lincoln's notions of 4th Generation Evaluation, in
91 so far as the researcher did not regiment the member-checking process, but rather attempted to confirm students' understandings during the course of the face-to-face data collection in each interview.
All interviews were audio-taped and transcribed for analysis. Concept ProfileInventories (CPD (Erickson, 1979; Taylor, 1997), a modified version of the CPI labelled the Related Learning Experience (RLE), and Researcher-Generated Concept Maps (RGCM) were produced for all students interviewed at each of the three phases of the main study (See Section 3.9.2 for details of CPI, RLE, and RGCM). The RGCM method was not originally planned at the outset of the study, but was subsequently added as a result of the pilot study conducted in Stage Two when it was realised that the CPI and RLE alone did not communicate the interconnected nature of students' knowledge. Categories of concepts (declarative, procedural, and contextual knowledge (Tennyson, 1989)), were incorporated in the CPI based on the analysis of data. The categories for the RLE also emerged from the analysis of data. Researcher-generated concept maps were formulated from the student-generated maps, the student interviews, and concept profile inventories which provided a description of the state of students' knowledge of electricity and magnetism, as interpreted by the researcher. This additional representation permitted a diagrammatic interpretation of how the knowledge elements were interrelated to one another consistent with a constructivist view of knowledge. Comparison of a student's individual researcher-generated concept maps between the three phases of the main study provided a basis for describing and interpreting student learning through the museum and PV A experiences.
In addition to the interview and concept map data, data pertaining to the students' regular Sciencentre and classroom-based experiences were also collected. These included: video recordings of the students' Sciencentre visit and their participation in the PV As, student worksheets completed as part of the PVA experiences, audio recordings of conversations of eight randomly selected students'
92 during their visit to the electricity and magnetism gallery in the Sciencentre, and the researcher's field notes.
3.5 Probes and Instruments: Interpreting Student Knowledge
Since the major research objectives of this study related to the understanding and interpretation of students construction of knowledge, effective tools were utilised to reveal and interpret this knowledge. The primary means by which student knowledge was revealed was via a combination of student-generated concept maps and probing semi-structured interviews which were employed at each of three phases of the study - prior to the museum visit, afterthe museum visit, and after museum related PV A. A description of these methods and the justification for their use are detailed in following sections.
3.S.1 Concept mapping
3.5.1.1 Definition and Application Rafferty (1993) defines a concept map as "a visual representation of how a student understands concepts and their relationships" (p. 26). The technique of concept mapping was originally developed by Novak (1977), who based much of its development on the Ausubelian theory of how individuals learn in a meaningful manner (See Section 2.4.2.2). Novak and Gowin's (1984) concept maps traditionally contain three elements - nodes which represent the concept (represented within an ellipse or circle), a labelled line between the nodes to indicate the relationships between the concepts, and directional arrows on the lines to provide further meaning to these relationships. Novak argues that concept maps should be hierarchical with a superordinate concept at the apex, a view which is consistent with the Ausubelian theory in which this method is grounded.
93 Steward, Van Kirk, and Rowell (1979) attribute three interrelated functions to the use of concept maps, namely, as a curricular tool; as an instructional tool; and as an evaluation tool. As a curricular tool, educators may use concept maps to organise and display the curriculum, assisting them in planning the type and manner of experience prepared for their students (Beyerbach & Smith, 1990; Hoz, Tomer, & Tamir, 1990). As an instructional tool, concept maps provide students with an opportunity to think about their own learning, and hence become better learners (Novak, 1977). As an evaluation tool, concept maps could be used as part of formative and/or summative evaluation methodology to check and assess the learning of students. Rafferty (1993) and Gunstone and White (1992) asserted that if evaluation is definedas the assessment of a person's knowledge, then concept maps are a viable method, since they display connections and logical connectivity used to describe relationships between the concepts listed.
3.5.1.2 Rationale fo r the use of concept maps There were several rationales for using concept maps as a method to represent and interpret student knowledge in the context of this research. First, the process of generating maps would likely help students think about their knowledge relating to the topic of magnetism and electricity, and thus increase their ability to articulate that knowledge during the probing interview. Second, the process of generating maps would allow students to self-assess their own understandings of their knowledge in terms of what they felt they knew well and knew poorly. Third, student -generated concept maps would provide a framework from which students would think metacognitively, enabling them to discuss how they believe they became cognisant of their knowledge and the past experiences which they believe were integral in the formation of that knowledge. Fourth, student-generated concept maps would provide a diagrammatic representation of student knowledge, which would likely provide a powerful and effective stimulus to direct and sustain students' conversations about electricity and magnetism during the course of the interview.
94 Notwithstanding the rationale for using concept mapping as a method in this study, it is recognised that the process of generating concept maps is in itself an intervention which causes knowledge to be transformed through the process of metacognition. Furthermore, self-generated concept maps are likely not to describe the full extent of an individual's knowledge. Knowledge is complex, and such graphical interpretations are limited by a person's ability to recall the extent of their own knowledge, as well as by their graphical representation skills. In addition, their willingness and motivation to complete the task also affects the quality of concept map representations of knowledge. One way of partly overcoming these problems is through researcher-generated concept maps (Chinnappan, Lawson, & Nason, 1999). Researcher-generated concept maps are concept maps of other people's knowledge, which are produced by the researcher. They are the researcher's interpretation of another's knowledge and the inter-relationships between components of that knowledge. Such representations, when combined with multiple data collection strategies, may more accurately represent an individual's knowledge than self generated maps alone. Multiple data sources such as student generated concept maps and probing interviews which delve deeper into an individual's understanding of a given topic, enable a researcher to generate a more accurate description of another's knowledge. However, researcher-generated concept maps can never claim to be a completely accurate representation of an individual's knowledge since they are an interpretation filteredby the views, attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge of the researcher generating the maps. To this end, such interpretation and representations may differ from researcher to researcher. However, it would be reasonable to assume that researchers with similar views, attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge would interpret other people's knowledge in similar ways.
3.5.1.3 Th e evaluation of concept maps Quantitative evaluation of student-generated concept maps has proven to be a controversial issue. Liu's (1993) study revealed that Year 7 students' concept mapping scores correlated significantlywith their scores on more traditional pencil and paper assessment instruments in the domain of general science. Fraser and
95 Edwards (1985) determined that Year 9 students who demonstrated a high level of mastery as depicted in their generated concept maps in both class work and homework also scored high on an end of unit test. Bousquet's (1982) study found that student achievement in a college level natural resources class matched closely with students' concept map scores. However, Novak, Gowin and lohansen (1983) reported poor correlation between seventh and eighth grade students' scores on standardised tests and their score on concept maps constructed around topics in biology. Similarly, Trigwell and Sleet (1990) found a low correlation between first year university chemistry students' conventional test scores and their scores on concept maps. Liu (1994) reports that the differences in the predictive validity of concept maps may be due to the differences in the scoring systems employed. Studies by Cleare (1983), Novak and Gowin (1984), Schreiber and Abegg (1991), Vargas and Alvarez (1992), and Wallace and Mintzes (1990) employed scoring schemes based upon the number of concept nodes, number of correct links, number of hierarchies and cross-links. In the earlier discussion of knowledge construction (Section 2.4), the Ausubelian view of meaningful learning suggesting increased interconnectedness of concepts, and/orincreased elaboration and differentiation of those concepts, was deemed to constitute learning and greater knowledge of a given topic domain. On this basis, if students are able to generate successive concept maps of a given topic domain which progressed in these previously described ways, knowledge construction indeed would be occurring. The difficulty with quantitative approaches such as these relates to the validity of implying that the number of nodes or links necessarily correlates with a quantifiable amount of knowledge. A specific node or link may be integral to the knowledge of one individual but absent from another's; such is the personalised nature of knowledge and knowledge construction. The issues are further complicated when such quantitative scores, used to indicate a level of knowledge, are compared with other individuals' scores. Further, in the view of the researcher, issues of counting concept nodes equally are quite problematic, and ultimately reduce the validity of the method. If such comparisons are to be made, then the quantitative scale must be coarse and non-discrete in order
96 to be applied universally to a set of individuals who have, at least, some basic commonalities, such as age and common education experience.
A recent study by Chinnappan et al. (1999) used both quantitative and qualitative assessment of concept maps to describe teachers' mathematical knowledge of geometry. Their study in part addresses some of the problematic aspects of quantitative assessment of maps by employing researcher-generated concept maps as a means to describe the breadth, organisation, and coherence of teachers' knowledge. In their study, free-recall and probing interviews were used to collect data, which were reinterpreted by the researchers in the form of concept maps. The breadth of knowledge was assessed by counting the number of concept nodes in the researcher-generated concept map. The organisation of people's knowledge was described in terms of the levels of connectedness, elaboration and quality of relationships between the nodes. The coherence of knowledge was assessed by the correctness and the completeness of the knowledge represented on the concept maps being evaluated. Inpart, their approach reduces the complication of a pure quantitative description adopted by many of the previously cited studies in a number of ways. First, the approach reduces the problems of having multiple generators of representation of knowledge (concept maps) which inevitably do not include all the assumptions made by the person generating the map within the graphical representation. It also follows that there is a benefit in having a single generator of the map in the sense that knowledge assumptions in the graphical representation are consistent across all the maps, which improves the inter-rater reliability of the representations. Second, multiple measures, which go beyond simple counting of nodes and connections, provide a more detailed description more in keeping with current constructivist theories.
Having briefly considered the relevant literature relating to concept maps, it is not the intention of this study to make comparisons between students based on their generated concept maps, but rather to compare concept maps of individual students at different stages of the study following specific interventions (Carey,
97 1986). Furthermore, it is not a main focus of this study to assess students' concept maps directly, but rather to use them during the course of the interview as a further means of probing more deeply revealing a clear picture of student knowledge at a given instance after a series of interventions.
3.5.1.4 Application of concept maps in the context of the research The application of student-generated concept maps served multiple purposes in this study. Stage Two (pilot study), reported in Chapter Four, Section 4.3, demonstrates that concept maps are a powerful and effective stimulus in two ways; 1) they allow students to reflectmetacognitively on their own knowledge and understandings, which makes the interview process one which is both fruitful and productive in revealing and interpreting students' knowledge, 2) the use of the students' concept map as a referent in the context of the interview, provides a powerful and effective stimulus to direct and sustain the conversation about their own knowledge and understandings. In this study, multiple data sets were used to construct researcher-generated concept maps for each student at each of the three phases of the study. A comparison of the maps generated at each of the three stages of the main study provided a diagrammatic representation of the ways in which students' knowledge was constructed and transformed during the course of the museum visit and PV A.
3.5.2 The probing interview
3.5.2.1 Definition and application The term "interviewing" covers a wide range of practices (Seidman, 1991). These practices may be considered in terms of a continuum of situations based upon the amount of control an interviewer exercises over an interviewee (Bemard, 1988; Gorden, 1975; Richardson, Dohrenwend, & Klein, 1965; Spradley, 1979). The scope of this continuum may be conveniently characterised by four commonly described interview types along this continuum, namely, the 'informal,' 'unstructured,' 'semi-structured,' and 'structured interviews.'
98 Informal interviews are characterised by their lack of structure or control. Here, the interviewer merely tries to remember conversations heard during the course of the day's investigations. Bernard (1988) describes this method of interviewing as being most useful during the initial phase of participant observation, "when you are just trying to know the lay of the land" (p. 204). Further, Bernard asserts, "it is also used throughout fieldwork to build greater rapport and uncover new topics of interest that might have been overlooked" (p. 204). Unstructured interviews are characterised by minimal control over the interviewees' responses. This style of interview allows the interviewer great latitude in asking broad questions in whatever order seems appropriate. The goals of such interviews are to get people to "open up" and allow them to express themselves in their own terms, and at their own pace. Unstructured interviews are commonly used within ethnographic research methodologies. Semi-structured interviews exhibit many of the characteristics of the unstructured interview. However, they are generally more goal-orientated, in that they seek to elicit specific types of information from the interviewee. Questions are generally open-ended, but fairly specific in their intent and seek to build upon and explore the interviewees' responses to questions. Structured interviews, unlike any of the aforementioned interview styles, follow a strict pattern of questioning which generally does not deviate from interview to interview. Interviewees are often presented a set of limited responses from which to select.
3.5.2.2 Selection, rationale, and justification fo r use of different typ es of interview Selecting the appropriate style of interview depends largely upon the interplay of variables, such as the type of information sought from those to be interviewed, available time, the context of the interview, and the age of the target group. For example, an informal or unstructured interview technique would probably not be particularly effective in revealing students' detailed understanding about the topic of electricity and magnetism, since such methods would not likely focus sufficiently on the core aspects which constitute the fundamentals of this topic domain. However, such interview techniques would be ideal in the context of gaining a general appreciation of visitors' experiences in museum galleries. A
99 structured interview may provide some better insight into an interviewee's knowledge. However, the validity of such a "limited response" methodology could easily be questioned, since this approach may provide only a superficial picture of the interviewee's knowledge. A "correct," scientifically accepted rationale for a selected response may not necessarily correlate with a "correct" answer during the course of a structured interview. In instances where an interviewer seeks to find out specific,yet personallindividualised information, the interview must have a degree of freedom and flexibilityto enable the interviewer to probe and deviate from a standardised, rigid procedure, and interact dynamically with the interviewee. These characteristics are typified by the semi-structured interview and deemed to be the appropriate style of interview for probing student knowledge states and the processes by which they are constructed in an interpretive manner. Measer (1985) describes the attribute of a good interviewer which permits such a dynamic interaction as "critical awareness."
Each type of interview has its own advantages and disadvantages, depending upon the interplay of the aforementioned variables. However, in general, face-to face interviews have several common advantages over pencil and paper probing methodologies. First, interview questions can be clarified as is appropriate for the interviewee. Second, interviews are generally not dependent on the reading and/or writing skills of the participants. Third, the sequence of questions may be controlled by the interviewer. Fourth, interviewers can create a co-operative and permissive milieu to improve the quality and quantity of interviewee responses (Korn & Sowd, 1990). Unstructured and semi-structured interviews have the added advantage over formal assessment methods of being dynamic, in that the interviewer can react and direct the discourse as a function of the interviewee's verbal and non-verbal responses. Such methods are ideal in the context of interpretive research where the questions asked are, in part, informed and shaped by the outcomes and responses of the interviewee.
100 3.5.2.3 Issues of trustworthiness Despite the aforementioned advantages, there are a number of common disadvantages of interview methodologies which can jeopardise the trustworthiness of the method. For the most part, most of these potentially devalidating effects reside with the approach of the interviewer and can be controlled. Common disadvantages include: the potential for interviewer bias in interpreting responses; leading questions which serve to reduce the trustworthiness of the methodology; subjectivity in interpreting open-ended, free response answers; influenceof interviewees' responses through a variety of verbal and non-verbal cues; poor interviewee-interviewer rapport, jeopardising the reliability of responses; and large amounts of time and labour in terms of preparation, implementation, and analysis. Measor (1985) suggests that the quality of the data gathered in the interview process is dependent on the quality of the relationships built between the interviewer and interviewee. However, Measor recognises that those who lie within the positivist sociology domain would warn against "over rapport" with interviewees, and recommend maintaining an appropriate distance to avoid "bias" effects. Since practically all authors in the area of interview methodology recognise the need to establish a good rapport with interviewees to ensure the trustworthiness of the data gathered, the level of rapport needs to be at an appropriate level for the interview context. Measor also asserts that "what the interviewer is influences and maybe determines the kind of data he or she receives" (p. 74). Factors such as age, gender, and ethnicity may be among the most critical of attributes that influence the interviewer (Pryce, 1979).
In order to ensure construct validity of the interviews, the interviewer's terminology must be conceptually consistent with the understanding of the interviewee. Likewise, the terms and language used by the interviewee must be considered for their intended meaning. For example, different words may mean different things to different people, thus the intended meaning of such terms must be probed to elicit the interviewee's intended meaning.
101 In an interpretive approach, it is important not to bias the interviewee with interviewer's ideas. One way of achieving this is through a multiple level approach such as used by McRobbie and Tobin (1995). Here, the structure of the semi structured interview was designed in such a way that it moved the participant through multiple levels from an open-ended approach to a more specific and directed discourse. Commencing with an open-ended approach allows the interviewees to express freely their most salient ideas and explain details of their understandings with minimal prompts from the interviewer. As the interview progresses, the researcher can direct the interview to more specific discourse aimed at a more focused evaluation of knowledge and understanding.
3.5.2.4 Application of interviews in the context of the research In the context of this research, informal and semi-structured interview techniques were employed. Informal interviews were used in Stage One to ascertain visitors' understanding of the concepts portrayed by RFSC's Signals exhibits after they had engaged in a free-choice interaction, and assisted with eventual development of the principles for development of PV As. The technique was also employed in the course of developing the PV As for use in the main study where visiting students were asked about their understanding of the concepts portrayed by the Queensland Sciencentre exhibitions. In this instance, the informal interviews provided the researcher with an appreciation of students' understandings of the exhibits, which helped inform the development of PV As in the light of the principles of design from Stage One.
Semi-structured interviews were used in Stages Two and Three of the research. In both stages the semi-structured interviews were used in conjunction with student-generated concept maps to reveal and interpret students' knowledge and understanding, the processes of knowledge construction, and the related learning experiences for which students believed they became cognisant of that knowledge and understanding.
102 3.6 Schedule and Process: Stages One, Two, and Three
3.6.1 Schedule and process of Stage One: Establishing the principles for the development of post-visit activities
In Stage One of the research, the principles for the development of post-visit activities were established. This was a multi-step process and included PVA development experience at the RFSC, which led to the formulation of theory-based principles for development of PVAs. Using these principles, the PVAs for the main study were developed.
During the course of a three month period (September through December 1995), seventeen (17) written PVAs were developed with the aim of further developing the cognitive knowledge of students aftervisi ting the new Signals Exhibition at the RFSC, and providing the researcher with the experiences necessary to establish the principles for the development of PV As. Appendix D contains samples of three of these seventeen PV As developed at the RFSC. The Signals exhibition consisted of a series of 43 interactive exhibit elements which portrayed the diversity of signals and aimed to provide visitors with an understanding of the basic principles that underlie the transmission, storage, and retrieval of information. The activities, developed from the experiences provided by this exhibition, were designed using a constructivist framework (Section 2.4) with a focus on visitors aged 12 to14 which was also similar to the age group of students who participated in the main study3. Initially, 45 visitors were informally interviewed using the approach discussed in Section 3.5.2, to ascertain visitors' understanding of the concepts portrayed by those exhibits after theyhad engaged in a free-choice interaction. After a number of interviews, an appreciation of the visitors' know ledge and understanding of the exhibits became evident. These understandings provided a basis from which the PVAs were developed, capitalising on visitors' newly-modified cognitive frameworks. In the process of the development of these signal processing
3 Students who participated in the Stage Three of the study were aged between 11 and 12 years - Refer to Section 3.7.2 for further details of these students.
103 PV As, the existing expertise of key personnel was capitalised upon, such as those who had prior experience in PV A development, exhibit designers, and teachers. Consultation with these key persons was particularly important in the initial stages of design, as well as in the review process of these PV As so as to appropriately contextualise the developing PV As with students' science centre experiences. Section 4.2 provides an in-depth description of the methods and outcomes of Stage One, in addition to the conclusions emergent from this stage of the study, including the principles for the development of educationally effective, classroom-based, PVAs.
3.6.2 Schedule and process of Stage Two: Pilot study of methods, data gathering, and data analysis strategies
Stage Two was a pilot study in which concept mapping techniques, interview protocols, and analysis methods for the main study (Stage Three) were designed, piloted, and modified. The detailed objectives, outcomes, and conclusions of Stage Two are reported in Section 4.3, while the time line and processes are detailed in the following sections.
3.6.2.1 Scheduling The concept mapping techniques, interview techniques and analysis methods were piloted with a group of twenty-eight Year 7 students from a primary school in metropolitan Brisbane, Australia. The pilot study was conducted over a period of one month in July, 1996, with the same school and teacher (but not the same class) involved in the subsequent main study in August 1997. The schedule for Stage Two: piloting concept mapping activities, interview protocol, and methods of analysis is detailed in Table 3.1
104 Table 3.1 Schedule fo r Piloting Concept Mapping Activities, Interview Protocol, and Methods of Analysis
Time Activity
Day 1 Concept mapping training: Teach students the basics of concept (1 hour) mapping. Practise generating concept maps with a series of "well known" topics.
Day 2 Generation of detailed concept maps: Facilitate a session where students (1 hour) generate a concept map relating to magnetism, which was a science unit recently completed within their classroom context.
Day 3 Student In terviews: Identifysix students on the basis of the level of (3 hours) apparent organisation and detail of their maps. Interview students for 20 minutes about their understanding and knowledge of magnetism and electricity, and probe as to the nature of their knowledge as portrayed in their generated concept maps.
Days 4 - 6 Transcription and analysis of student interviews: Transcribe student (30 hours) interviews and analyse data.
Days 7 - 9 Generate Concept Profile Inventories (CPI) and Related Learning (30 hours) Experience Inventories (RLE): Generate CPI and RLE for each of the six students and analyse inventories for commonalities.
Days 10 - 20 Review, Reflection and Evaluation of Methods: Critically reflecton pilot (80 hours) study data. Review and evaluate methods in preparation for main study.
3.6.2.2 Concept mapp ing procedures Students underwent a one-hour training session which was designed to determine whether the instruction was sufficient to provide them with adequate skills with which to construct concept maps. The researcher was conscious that, while intensive training in concept mapping techniques may well enable students to produce highly ordered, well-structured maps, such training would also serve to make the students more metacognitive and thus atypical Year 7 students. Hence the main emphasis of this part of the pilot study was to determine if a short period of one hour was sufficient for students to generate concept maps successfully. The training consisted of a twenty-minute discussion of what concept maps were, including some visual examples of simple and complex, Novak-style maps (Novak & Gowin, 1984) showing the hierarchical nature of the diagrams. The training program demonstrated the basic components and process of 'how to develop a concept map.' The program was also conducted in a way which was consistent with the teaching methods
105 prevalent in the classroom in that it was both hands-on and enjoyable for the students. The training program included step-by-step instructions detailed in Table 3.2. Students were involved with this initial discussion by contributing their own ideas and notions of how various concepts on the sample concepts maps were related in their own minds. During the course of the instruction, students were told that there were no "wrong" or "incorrect" maps, just maps which they generated themselves. Students then had the opportunity to generate their own simple concept map on the topic of food webs. This exercise provided the students with seven concepts in addition to four more of their own choosing which they included (Appendix A).
Table 3.2 Step by Step Instructions on the Process of Concept Mapping Step Instruction
1 Write down the major terms you know about the given topic, e.g. If we were to make a concept map about "Food Webs," we may include such terms as The Sun, Cow, Carbon dioxide, Tick, Grass, Human, and Plants.
2 Write down these terms into the 'ovals' provided.
3 Think about how each of these terms are related to one another
4 Cut out each of the 'ovals' and arrangethem on the sheet of A3 paper in a way which shows how these terms are related or connected to each other in some way
5 Once you are satisfied with the way you have arranged them, stick them to the sheet of A3 paper.
6 Draw connecting arrows between each of the terms and write a sentence using both terms to describe how they are related. Each terms you use must have at least one connecting arrow to another term for it to be used in your map. Terms may be connected to other terms in more than one way.
Working together in pairs, students were instructed to show how these concepts were related by generating a concept map following the general instruction described in the twenty minute introduction. Students were allowed forty minutes to complete the task and, at the end of the activity, several students made oral presentations about their maps. Following a one-hour lunch break, students were asked to generate a concept map about the topic of magnetism. All students were
106 handed a worksheet which consisted of 14 blank concept nodes (Appendix B) and an A3 sized piece of paper on which to paste nodes and generate their own concept map. Students followed the same process as detailed in Table 3.2, with the main differences in the activity being that they were only supplied with one term, namely, "magnetism" and thus had to generate all other associated terms themselves; they were also required to work independently. Appendix B contains the student handout which assisted them in completing this task. Students were allowed one hour to complete the task.
3.6.2.3 Interviewing procedures Three days following these concept mapping exercises, on the basis of the detail and structure of their maps six students were selected, to participate in a probing interview during which they were asked about their maps, and probed about their knowledge of magnetism and how they became cognisant of that knowledge. Three students who had what were classifiedby the researcher as poorly-constructed maps, and three students who had well-constructed maps constituted the six under consideration. The interviews typically lasted 20 to 30 minutes and were tape recorded and later transcribed. Table 3.3 details the interview phases and the interview protocol which each of the six students underwent.
107 Table 3.3 Interview Protocol: Formatand Guide Questions - Pilot Study
Interview Interview Protocol Steps
1: Rapport Introduce interviewer to interviewee; Explain the purpose of the Building interview; Detail the various stages of the interview and what the interviewee can expect; Explain that there are no right or wrong answers and that it is the views of the interviewee which are important.
2: Open-Ended Q: Tell me all that you know about the topic of "Magnetism"; Allow Discourse and encourage the interviewee to talk freely about the topic until the discourse is exhausted; Interviewer will be "critically aware" and note any key statements or phrases espoused by the interviewee.
3: Analysis of Q: "When you were asked to make your mind map about magnetism, Student from where did you draw your ideas?" (Probe: classroom science, lab Generated work, home experiences, books, TV, etc.) Concept Map Q: "Describe your concept map to me": Allow the interviewee an opportunity to describe his or her concept map in detail; Probe the nature, understanding, and construction of the various nodes and links of the concept map. Q: "I notice that this term has a lot of links in your mind map. Could you explain why you drew it like this?" Q: "I notice that this term has very few links in your mind map. Could you explain why you drew it like this?" Q: "How did you know " ....." Probe the interviewee as to how they became cognisant of their knowledge.
4: Specific Q: "Tell me what you understand by the terms: Discourse Magnetism; Electro-magnet, Generator, Field." Q: "How does 'Magnetism' relate to 'Electricity'?"; Probe the interviewee as to the specific understanding of various concepts within the domain of the topic with the currently accepted scientific understanding as a standard.
5: Summation Q: "Do you have any additional comments and/or questions you would like to ask?" Allow the interviewee the opportunity to make any final comment or ask any final questions of the interviewer.
3.6.2.4 Analysis procedures From a qualitative analysis of each student's transcripts and his/her concept map, a list of concepts which the student was believed to have possessed was then grouped into five categories, namely, properties of magnets, applications of magnets, magnetic phenomena, theory of magnetism, and alternative frameworks. These categories were not predetermined but rather emerged from the data sets when they were considered in their entirety. The list of concepts was compiled in the concept
108 profile inventory (CPI), and, where possible, the origin of each of the concepts was ascertained from the data sets and encoded into the Related Learning Experience Inventory (RLE). Section 4.3 describes the outcomes and conclusions of the Stage Two of the study.
3.6.3 Schedule and process of Stage Three: Interpretation of students' construction of knowledge from a visit to the Sciencentre and subsequent completion of post-visit activities
Stage Three, the main study, provided an interpretation of the ways students constructed, reconstructed, and consolidated their science knowledge gained from their Sciencentre experiences and their participation in subsequent related PV As. In this stage, students were provided two major experiences and probed about their knowledge in three phases: Pre-visit phase (Phase A), one week prior to visiting the Sciencentre; Post-visit phase (Phase B), during the week following the visit to the Sciencentre; and Post-Activity phase (Phase C), during the week following the PVAs. The PVAs were conducted a week following the Sciencentre visit. The administration schedule for Stage Three of the study is outlined in Table 3.4.
The pre-visit phase (Phase A) was designed to establish the existing knowledge and understanding which students possessed prior to the Sciencentre or PVA experience. The members of the class generated concept maps about their understanding of electricity and magnetism, and were interviewed to determine their current understandings of the topics. Twelve (12) students were selected and interviewed in order to probe and eventually develop Concept Profile Inventories (CPI), Related Learning Experience Inventories (RLE), and Researcher-Generated Concept Maps (RGCM). These students were selected on the basis of the detail of their concept maps, the existence of intriguing or alternative frameworks, and also on the recommendations of their classroom teacher. Further, students who were known by the teacher to be non-communicative, were excluded from the sample, on the basis that they may not have been able to articulate their learning experiences as effectively as more communicative students.
109 Table 3.4 Schedule 0/ Interventions and Student Experiences/or the Main Study Phase Pre-Visit Phase (Phase A)
Duration 1 Day - 10/7/97 2 Days - 14/7/97 & 15/7/97
Process Concept mapping training using Interview 12 students prior to Sciencentre procedure detailed in Table 3.1 visit - to probe existing understanding of electricity and magnetism. Concept mapping exercise relating to the topics of electricity and magnetism. Six students on 14/7/97 and six students on 15/7/97. Selection of 12 students for interviews - on the basis of concepts and teacher recommendations.
Phase Post-Visit Phase (Phase B)
Duration 1 Day - 15/7/97 1 Day - 16/7/97 1 Day - 18/7/97 2 Days - 21/7/97 & 22/7/97
Process Pre-orientation to Field trip visit to Concept mapping Interviews after the Sciencentre - Sciencentre - 3 exercise relating to Sciencentre visit - 30 minute talk and hours. the topics of to identify and slide presentation, electricity and probe changes in including student Classroom de- magnetism - 40 existing knowledge questions. briefing session - minutes. states and how 15 minutes. these new states were constructed.
Six students on 21/7/97 and six students on 22/7/97.
Phase Post-Activity Phase (Phase C)
Duration 1 Day - 23/7/97 1 Day - 24/7/97 2 Days - 25/7/97 & 28/7/97
Process Student participation in Concept mapping exercise Interviews after post-visit post-visit activities - relating to the topics of activities - to probe new Appendix (E & F). electricity and magnetism - knowledge states and how 40 minutes. these new states were PV A - Part (1) - 45 constructed. minutes PV A - Part (2) - 30 Six students on 25/7/97 minutes and six students on 26/7/97.
110 The post-visit phase (Phase B) aimed to provide students with experiences at the Sciencentre, which would provide the stimulus for knowledge construction in the domains of their understanding of electricity and magnetism. Consistent with findings of the literature detailed in Section 2.5.2, this phase commenced with a pre orientation program dealing with the fieldtrip visit to the Sciencentre. Students experienced the Sciencentre as a free-choice learning environment, that is, they were free to attend to exhibits at their own pace, as a function of their own interest, and as a function of interest and the agenda of their social context.
Following this visit, all students participated in a group debriefing session where they were able to discuss freely and reflectupon their experiences in the museum. This was considered by the researcher and the teacher to be a natural component of the students' field trip visit to the Sciencentre. Two days after the visit, students generated concept maps such as were employed in Phase A. The student-generated concept maps provided guidance for the direction of the interview in order that individual CPI, RLE, and RGCM could be developed.
Finally, the post-activity phase (Phase C) provided experiences which would help students construct and reconstruct their science knowledge gained from the museum experience as a result of participation in related PV As. Phase C followed essentially the same process as detailed in Phase B. The student-generated concept maps were utilised in the interview process, in addition to video and audio data gathered from the classroom PV A experiences, to fulfilthe aforementioned aims of Phase C.
The results are a series of twelve individual case studies which described knowledge construction, reconstruction, and consolidation, over the course of the one month research period. An overview of these data is presented in Chapter Five, while a detailed discussion of five of these twelve are presented in Chapter Six.
111 3.7 Context and Participants of the Main Study
3.7.1 The school and teacher
The teacher, Mr. Wallace (a pseudonym), had eighteen years teaching experience, and was somewhat more interested in, and knowledgable about science than most of his colleagues in the school where he taught. Indeed, Mr. Wallace was respected by his teacher colleagues and the students at his school as being the science expert. This was exemplifiedby the fact that he was occasionally invited to conduct science lessons in other teachers' classes and was often asked science-based questions by students who were not members of his class. Mr. Wallace was considered by the researcher to be an extremely dedicated science teacher, demonstrated by his involvement in the administration of the science program and the development and review of science-based curriculum at his school. Furthermore, Mr. Wall ace demonstrated his dedication towards science teaching through his involvement with the Science Teachers' Association of Queensland (STAQ), recently serving as a committee member organising the Annual Queensland Science Contest. The Queensland Science Contest is a state-wide event in which students' experimental research, classifiedcolle ctions, models, and computer-related investigations are competitively assessed.
Mr. Wallace held a strong belief that teaching and learning should be both fun and enjoyable for students. This view was justified in the sense that if learning experiences are enjoyable, this would, in turn, increase students' intrinsic motivation and interest in the topics at hand and ultimately improve both the quality and quantity of learning outcomes. These views were exemplified by the following excerpt from an interview conducted by the researcher with Mr. Wallace following the data collection period.
I think that anything that kids do has got to be fun. Kids have got to feel happy about what they are doing; if they are not happy, if they don't think it is enjoyable, you're not going to get very far. This is sometime very difficult
112 to achieve because you have got some subject areas, particularlyin maths and science, which may not be that palatable [for students], but if you can find a way to presenting the material that makes it fu n, it makes it much more rewarding, the results you get from the kids.
These views were enacted through his advocacy and practice of providing hands-on activity for students, including group work, individual experimentation, and teacher facilitated demonstration as an integral part of his approach to teaching. Upon reflectionon his own teaching in recent years, Mr. Wallace concluded that he had increased the amount of hands-on activity in his classes, not only on the basis that it improves students' attitudes, but also because of the empowerment that it provides students in their learning of science.
In the view of the researcher, Mr. Wallace held a constructivist view of teaching and learning, as evidenced by the manner in which he structured the teaching of his curriculum units and his own elaboration of his teaching philosophy. He believed that learning is based on and developed from personal experiences which individuals perceive. In accordance with these views, he structured his teaching of curriculum about three phases, namely, orientation, enhancement, and synthesis. His orientation phase introduced the topic and ascertained the prior background, beliefs and understanding that students held about the topics to be taught. The enhancement phase presented the curriculum in ways which attempted to link with students' prior understandings and make specific links between what they know and they can do. Finally, the synthesis phase summed up the teaching and learning experiences in a way which helped students contextualise their newly developed knowledge in other ways.
I guess any teaching episode is going to be comprised of an orientation phase, an enhancement phase, followed by a synthesising phase. Now, by that I mean, orientating the kid, introducing the topic or subject, find what knowledge they have, so that you have an understanding of background they have - enhance that - come into some teaching material and make specific links between what they know and what they can do and then present my [teaching] material through that, and [finally,] synthesis it - try and tie the whole lot up so that there is a growth in [their] knowledge that occurs as a result of [their] prior knowledge interacting with presented material.
113 The state primary school, containing grades one through seven, is situated in suburban Brisbane, in a relatively affluent neighbourhood. The school is set in attractive, though limited grounds compared with most state schools in the city, and is considered by the education community to be well resourced and to have a good reputation for academic achievement. Furthermore, community members regard the school to be one which provides both a caring and safe environment for children. Prominent in the classroom of Mr. Wallace were numerous computers, posters and other evidence of students' work in various subjects displayed on walls or suspended from the ceiling. There was a range of simple apparatus to support the teaching of topics included in the primary science syllabus.
Mr. Wall ace and his year seven class were selected to participate in the study for several reasons. First, Mr. Wallace came recommended by the Science Teachers' Association of Queensland as one who was a dedicated and progressive science teacher. Second, Mr Wallace and the school administration where he was teaching expressed an interest and willingness to participate in the study, on the basis that they foresaw benefitsfor their students and teaching pedagogy resulting from the study. Third, the scheduling of the data collection in August 1997 coincided nicely with the year seven science curriculum, in that the electricity and magnetism unit was due to be taught in September immediately following the researcher's interventions in the classroom. Finally, the school was conveniently located some 30 minutes drive from the university.
3.7.2 The students
The participants in Stage Three of this study were a group of twenty-eight Year Seven, primary-school students. The class consisted of 13 males and 15 females, primarily white, from a middle-class socio-economic background. This group was selected for three reasons. First, the students selected were considered to be typical of the greater population of upper primary students in metropolitan schools. Given that students from this group constitute the largest population of
114 visitors to the science centres in Australia, the result of the study will be of interest to teachers and museum staff. Second, it was considered likely that they possessed limited knowledge of the science concepts of electricity and magnetism which the museum exhibits and PV As depicted, thus permitting ample opportunity for students to construct further their knowledge relating to these concepts. Finally, as stated previously, their teacher and school were both willing and interested to participate in the study.
The parents and guardians of the students were all informed by the school that their child's class was about to participate in a research study which had the approval of the principal and teacher. Furthermore, parents and guardians were invited to sign a consent form which signifiedtheir permission for their child to become an active participant in the study under the supervision of the class teacher. Support and parental consent proved to be unanimous among parents of students in the class. Further details of those students who were the subject of close study are provided in Chapter Six.
3.7.3 The Sciencentre
The Queensland Sciencentre is located in downtown Brisbane in a recently renovated government building dating back to the early part of last century. The centre itself consists of three levels and contains five galleries totalling 2,200 m2 (23,310 sq.ft) of exhibition floor space. Figure 3.3 depicts the schematic floor plan of the Sciencentre. The Sciencentre averages 150,000 visitors per year, of which school group visitors on fieldtrips account for 44,000 visits. The staff consists of 16 full-time members, five of whom are classifiedas being part of the education department. In addition, the Sciencentre maintains a volunteer staff of facilitators and explainers who serve to enrich visitors' experiences of the exhibits through their in-gallery presence and live interpretation. On any given day, there may be upwards of 10 explainers scattered throughout the various galleries.
115 Figure 3.3. The Queensland Sciencentre schematic floor plan.
In terms of McManus' (1992) description of science museum types, the Queensland Sciencentre would be classified as a "third generation museum," which presents ideas instead of objects in a decontextualised scattering of interactive exhibits, which can be thought of as exploring stations of ideas (p. 164). The exhibits in the Sciencentre galleries portrayed a diversity of science topics; light, sound, mechanics, and the focus of this study, electricity and magnetism. Most exhibits, including the electricity and magnetism units, were 'stand-alone,' 'hands on,' 'phenomenon-based,' with little context or no contextual links to real-world applications of the scientific principles which they attempted to demonstrate. The exhibits were stand-alone in the sense that they could be successfully operated and engaged independently of other exhibits in the gallery. Generally speaking, the exhibit elements were not designed and developed to be clustered. However, the Sciencentre had attempted to arrange them in ways which were in keeping with gallery space and also thematically consistent. For example, exhibits which related to induction effects were loosely grouped in close proximity with each other. The exhibits were hands-on in the sense that the students had to manipulate them
116 physically or observe others manipulate the exhibit controls in order to detect or see the intended message of the exhibit. They were phenomenon-based in the sense that they demonstrated scientific principles in the domain of electricity and magnetism. Finally, they lacked context in so far as they did not include any information which linked the demonstrated phenomenon with real world application of the phenomenon. While these exhibits were not ideal from a constructivist standpoint, their lack of context later proved to be advantageous in the context of this research, since the main study revealed that students brought their own "real world" context to the experience. This provided evidence of knowledge construction.
While the electricity and magnetism exhibits were "rich" in the physical stimuli of motion effects, light effects, sound effects, and colour, they were not as rich as some other exhibits in the same gallery. Observations of visitors by the museum staff and the researcher suggested that the exhibits about the topic of "light" had a greater attracting and holding power than those under consideration in this study. Nevertheless, the electricity and magnetism exhibits were interesting to students and likely to produce cognitive change among students who interacted with them. Evidence for such change is demonstrated by Anderson' s (1994) study with the same exhibits previously described in Section 2.5.2.
The Queensland Sciencentre was selected as a venue which would provide students with science-based experiences in an informal setting consistent with the researcher's views that such a setting was rich in physical and social stimuli conducive to knowledge construction. Furthermore, the staff were known to the researcher and were willing to collaborate with the various requirements and demands of the study.
117 3.8 The Interventions for the Main Study
There were two categories of interventions in this study - naturalistic and non-naturalistic. The naturalistic interventions consisted of the Sciencentre experience and classroom-based PV As. The non-naturalistic interventions were events students experienced as a result of the researcher's attempts to gain insight and understanding of their knowledge, through interview and concept-mapping exercises.
3.8.1 Naturalistic interventions
The museum experience consisted of a pre-orientation to the museum field trip, the museum fieldtrip itself, and the classroom-based de-briefing of the experience. The PVAs were conducted in the classroom one week following the visit to the science centre and were designed to stimulate knowledge construction of the domains of electricity and magnetism directly related to the museum experience. There were two components to the PVAs : Part 1 - Student theories of how the electricity and magnetism exhibits work and Part2 - Making electricity from magnetism.
3.8.1.1 Museum pre-orientation Students were pre-orientated to their field-trip visit experience in order to moderate the potentially high novelty effect and help maximise the learning outcomes of the intervention (Anderson & Lucas, 1997; Anderson, 1994; Kubota & Olstad, 1991; Orion & Hofstein, 1994). The pre-orientation consisted of a 20 minute overview of the forthcoming experience, detailing the events of the day, the exhibits they were to encounter and specificexhibits to which students were cued to attend, the role of the researchers in the day's events, and the de-briefing session. The presentation included visual aids depicting the science centre, its galleries, floor plans of the gallery, and key exhibits.
118 3.8.1.2 Fieldtrip visitto the Sciencentre The field trip visit consisted of transportation of students from the school to the museum, pre-entry orientation by museum staff, free choice interaction with the exhibits in galleries #1, #2 and #3, an interactive science show, and transportation back to the school. The fieldtrip was three hours in duration, including two hours at the science centre. Students encountered the electricity and magnetism exhibits, located in gallery #3 (see figure 3.4), after a 30 minute visit to gallery #1. The visit to gallery #3 was intentionally scheduled after 30 minutes of interaction in the Sciencentre in order to reduce high levels of novelty to more moderate levels and improve learningresulting from their experiences. Students were allowed a total of 45 minutes of free choice interaction in galleries #2 and #3, followed by the 30 minute interactive science show. While students had free access to a wide range of exhibits depicting a variety of science content, they were requested to pay special attention to the electricity and magnetism gallery and, in particular, six key exhibits identifiedwith a large pink coloured sign saying "Target Exhibit." These six exhibits (Electric Motor, GeneratingElectricity, Electricityfr om a Magnet, Hand Battery, Curie Point, and Making a Magnet) were the topic of the future PVAs conducted one week following the museum field trip. Appendix G describes these six exhibit elements in detail.
To Theatre 1\ Map of Sciencentre Galleries Second Level
M = Male Toilet F = Female Toilet W = Water Fountain
Figure 3.4. Floor plan of galleries two and three of the Sciencentre.
119 3.8.1.3 Field trip de-briefing Upon returning to the classroom, students participated in a 15 minute, teacher-facilitated de-briefing of their field trip experience. In this session, students were encouraged to express their thoughts about the field trip, what they found interesting, puzzling, liked, and disliked, in addition to what they felt they learned from their experiences.
3.8.1.4 Th e post-visit activities PVAs used in the main study were constructed in accordance with the four principles established in Stage One (reported in Section 4.2), and the topics of magnetism and electricity portrayed by a set of exhibits located in the Queensland
Sciencentre. In the initial stages of development, unobtrusive observations of fifty Year 7 students who visited the Sciencentre in February 1997, provided some insight into how students interacted with the 17 electricity and magnetism exhibits from which the PVAs were developed. In addition, a subsample of approximately 15 students were informally interviewecf' after they had interacted with exhibits, about their understanding of the concepts portrayed by these exhibits. After a number of interviews, the researcher developed an appreciation of students' understandings of the exhibits, which helped inform the development of PV As in the light of the principles of design from Stage One. As a result of this, PV As used in the main study, which would capitalise on students' Sciencentre experiences, were developed.
In the main study (August, 1997), one week following their visit to the Sciencentre, students participated in two sessions of post-visit activity relating to their museum experiences (Appendix E & F) developed in accordance with the principles articulated in Section 4.2. Part One - "Electricity and Magnetism Exhibits at the Sciencentre" (Appendix E) was a one-hour session designed to help students recall their experience of the exhibits at the Sciencentre including aspects of their personal and social contexts. The activity required students to work in pairs, select two exhibits which they found interesting, and describe their experience at each of
4 Refer to Section 3.5.2 - The Probing Interview, for a description of the informal interview technique.
120 the exhibits with an explanation of how they believed the exhibit worked. Part One was designed not only to help students recall declarative knowledge of their experiences, but also to help them develop deeper insight and understanding of those experiences in the form of procedural and contextual knowledge as a product of metacognitive reflection. This was achieved through requiring students to think about what messages the exhibits were designed to communicate, comparing and contrasting exhibits, and asking students to provide a phenomenological explanation of "why the exhibits do what they do." Part Two - "Application of Theory to Hands on Activity" was designed to present students with an open-ended experience in which they replicated an experiment portrayed by some of the key exhibits encountered at the science centre. Here students generated electricity by moving a magnet over a coil of copper wire, and related this experience to the experiences of the science centre field trip. Student were asked to detail their observations, provide explanations for their observations, and relate these to their Sciencentre experiences. This activity aimed to: a) provide further experience with electricity and magnetism in order to promote knowledge construction and/or reconstruction; and b) allow students to articulate further their theories of the observed phenomena and relate their theories back to the exhibits discussed in "Part One" and other exhibits encountered in the museum.
The one-week period between the visit to the science centre and the PV As allowed the researcher to collect data from the 12 students who were participating in the interview component of the study, as well as to allow time for the students to reflecton their experiences.
3.8.2 Non-naturalistic interventions
3.8.2.1 Phase A interventions The initial non-naturalistic event students experienced, as a result of the researcher's attempts to gain insight and understanding of their knowledge, was a training session in which the researcher helped provide students with concept
121 mapping skills. Although considered a non-naturalistic intervention, this training session was conducted in a manner which was consistent with the teaching method which the class was used to experiencing, i.e., the session was conducted in both an enjoyable and hands-on manner. This was accomplished using procedures similar to those used in the pilot study of Stage Two, detailed in Section 3.6.2.2, Table 3.2, and using the student handout featured in Appendix A. The pilot study revealed that students: 1) sometimes experienced difficulty labelling the arrows connecting nodes on their concept maps; 2) experienced some difficultiesin arrangingthe nodes within their concept maps in a "logical" hierarchical form; 3) sometimes used the same concept (node) more than once; 4) sometimes appeared to confuse the direction of the arrow connecting two nodes; 5) had greater difficultyfo cusing on generating their concept maps in the afternoon session compared with the morning session. To address these problems, the training program for the main study placed greater emphasis on addressing problematic behaviour such as described in points 1, 2, 3, and 4, and was scheduled for a 9:00AM session. The details of these modifications are more fully discussed in Section 4.3.6.2.
Following the concept map training session, and aftermorning tea (10:30AM), students generated concept maps pertaining to their understanding of electricity and magnetism. Students were given a handout which contained the concept nodes "electricity" and "magnetism" in addition to multiple blank nodes (Appendix C), and were asked to complete a mind map using the following steps:
1. Think about the topics of "Magnetism" and "Electricity." 2. Write the terms that come to mind when you think about these topics in the list below. 3. Now write these terms in the ovals and cut these out and arrange them in a map which shows how these are relatedor connected to each other. 4. Draw connecting arrows between each of the terms and write a sentence using both terms to describe how the terms are related. 5. You may use more "terms" and "ovals" than are listed on this handout by requesting another copy of this hand-out.
During the activity, both the researcher and classroom teacher assisted students where necessary. Twelve students were selected and interviewed, using the selection procedures detailed in Section 3.7.3 and the protocol detailed in Table 3.5
122 Table 3.5 Interview Protocol: Format and Guide Questions - Pre-Visit Phase (Phase A)
Interview Interview Protocol Steps
1: Rapport Introduce interviewer to interviewee; Explain the purpose of the Building interview; Detail the various stages of the interview and what the interviewee can expect; Explain that there are no right or wrong answers and that it is the views of the interviewee which are important.
2: Open-Ended Q: "Tell me all that you know about the topics of 'Magnetism' and Discourse 'Electricity'?"; Allow and encourage the interviewee to talk freely about the topic until the discourse is exhausted; Interviewer will be "critically aware" and note any key statements or phrases espoused by the interviewee.
3: Analysis of Q: "When you were asked to make your mind map about magnetism Student and electricity, from where did you draw your ideas?" (Probe: Generated classroom science, lab work, home experiences, books, TV, etc.) Concept Map Q: "Describeyour mind map to me;" Allow the interviewee an opportunity to describe his or her concept map in detail; Probe the nature, understanding, and construction of the various nodes and links of the concept map; Q: "How did you know ' .... .'?" Probe the interviewee as to how they became cognisant of their knowledge.
4: Specific Q: "Tell me what you understand by the terms: Discourse Magnetism; Electro-magnet, Generator, Field." ,, Q: "How does 'Magnetism' relate to 'Electricity'? ; Probe the interviewee as to the specific understanding of various concepts within the domain of the topic with the currently-accepted scientific understanding as a standard.
5: Summation Q: "Do you have any additional comments and/or questions you would like to ask?"; Allow the interviewee the opportunity to make anyfi nal comment or ask any final questions of the interviewer.
3.8.2.2 Phase B interventions Following the students' field trip experience, they completed an additional concept map of their understandings of electricity and magnetism, and were interviewed using the interview protocol detailed in Table 3.6
123 Table 3.6 Interview Protocol: Formatand Guide Questions - Post-Visit (Phase B)
Interview Interview Protocol Steps
1: Rapport Explain the purpose of the interview; Detail the various stages of the Building interview and what the interviewee can expect; Explainthat there are no right or wrong answers and that it is the views of the interviewee which are important.
2: Open-Ended Q: "Tell me all that you know about the topics of 'Magnetism' and Discourse 'Electricity' ?"; Allow and encourage the interviewee to talk freely about the topic until the discourse is exhausted; Interviewer will be "critically aware" and note any key statements or phrases espoused by the interviewee.
3: Analysis of Q: "When you were asked to make your mind map about magnetism Student and electricity, from where did you draw your ideas?" (Probe: Generated classroom science, lab work, home experiences, books, TV, Sciencentre Concept Map field trip, etc.) Q: "Describe your mind map to me"; Allow the interviewee an opportunity to describe his or her concept map in detail; Probe the nature, understanding, and construction of the various nodes and links of the concept map; Q: "How did you know ' ..... '?" Probe the interviewee as to how they became cognisant of their knowledge. Q: "I notice that you have some new concepts and links on you map since we last talked ... Tell me about " ....."
4: Specific Q: "What do you think you learntfrom visiting the Sciencentre?" Discourse Q: "Tell me what you understand by the terms: Magnetism; Electro-magnet, Generator, Field." Q: "How does 'Magnetism' relate to 'Electricity' ?"; Probe the interviewee as to the specific understanding of various concepts within the domain of the topic with the currently accepted scientific understanding as a standard.
5: Summation Q: "Do you have any additional comments and/or questions you would like to ask?"; Allow the interviewee the opportunity to make any final comment or ask any final questions of the interviewer.
3.8.2.3 Phase C interventions Following the students' involvement in the classroom-based PV As, they completed final concept maps of their understandings of electricity and magnetism and were interviewed using the interview protocol detailed in Table 3.7.
124 Table 3.7 Interview Protocol: Format and Guide Questions - Post-Activity Phase (Phase C)
Interview Interview Protocol Steps
1: Rapport Detail the various stages of the interview and what the interviewee can Building expect; Explain that there are no right or wrong answers and that it is the views of the interviewee which are important.
2: Open-Ended Q: "Tell me all that you know about the topics of 'Magnetism' and Discourse 'Electricity'?"; Allow and encourage the interviewee to talk freely about the topic until the discourse is exhausted; Interviewer will be "critically aware" and note any key statements or phrases espoused by the interviewee.
3: Analysis of Q: "When you were asked to make you mind map about magnetism and Student electricity, from where did you draw your ideas?" (Probe: classroom Generated science, lab work, home experiences, books, TV, Sciencentre fieldtrip, Concept Map Post-visit activities, etc.) Q: "Describe your mind map to me;" Allow the interviewee an opportunity to describe his or her concept map in detail; Probe the nature, understanding, and construction of the various nodes and links of the concept map; Q: "How did you know ' .... .'?" Probe the interviewee as to how they became cognisant of their knowledge. Q: "I notice that you have some new concepts and links on you map since we last talked ... Tell me about " ....."
4: Specific Q: "What do you think you learntfrom visiting the Sciencentre?" Discourse Q: "What do you think you learntfrom doing the post-visit activities?" Q: "Tell me what you understand by the terms: Magnetism; Electro-magnet, Generator, Field." Q: "How does 'Magnetism' relate to 'Electricity'?"; Probe the interviewee as to the specific understanding of various concepts within the domain of the topic with the currently accepted scientific understanding as a standard.
5: Summation Q: "Do you have any additional comments and/or questions you would like to ask?"; Allow the interviewee the opportunity to make any final comment or ask any final questions of the interviewer.
3.9 Data Collection and Analysis Techniques for the Main Study
The twelve students selected for case study were each randomly assigned a number 1 through 12, which would identify the case throughout the study. Each phase of the study was further identified by an alphabetical letter representative of the phase of the study to which the data belonged, that is, A for Phase A, B for Phase
125 B, and C for Phase C. Thus, both interview and concept map data sets could be identified by a simple code which distinguished their student assignment and phase of the study. For example, A06 corresponded to student number 6 in the pre-visit phase of the study, while e12 correspondedto student number 12 in the post-activity phase of the study.
3.9.1 Probing student knowledge
In Stage Three of the research, students' knowledge of science concepts relating to magnetism and electricity was probed and interpreted. Several authors have reviewed methods of probing student understanding (Gunstone & White, 1992; Stewart, 1990; Sutton, 1980), and indicated that multiple methods improve the trustworthiness of the data collected. In this study, a combination of semi-structured interviews and concept maps was considered an effective means to gain an appreciation of the states of students' cognitive knowledge at the various phases of the study. The student-generated concept maps and photographs of exhibits were employed as aids in the probing interview to reveal and interpret students' knowledge states during the various phases of the study. The pilot study, reported in Section 4.3, demonstrated that these methods proved to be both powerful and effective stimuli in that they allowed students to reflecton their own knowledge and understandings, making the interview process one which was both fruitful and productive in revealing and interpreting students' knowledge. Furthermore, the concept maps were also a referent in the context of the interview to provide a powerful and effective stimulus to direct and sustain the conversation about their own knowledge and understandings.
Students were questioned and probed about their reasoning and rationale for links between various nodes on their concept maps, as well as the experiential events which they perceived were important in the development of their knowledge. At the conclusion of the interviews, students were encouraged to make any additions or changes to their concept maps which they felt they would like to make. The
126 additions were usually in the form of additional links and concept nodes, and, on a few occasions, changes to the nature of the prepositional links between nodes. All additions and changes were drawn in red ink on a copy of their original map.
The Pre-Visit (Phase A), Post-Visit (Phase B), and Post-Activity (Phase C) interviews were audio-taped and transcribed for analysis. There were three types of information extracted from the interview data, namely, concepts students possessed, interconnections between various knowledge elements, and the experiences with which students' knowledge was constructed. These data were encoded into the CPI and RLE for each student. The CPIs were designed to represent the concepts students possessed at the commencement of the study and the changes that had occurred following the Sciencentre and PV A experiences. The Related Learning Experiences (RLE) data represented the experiential events which students claimed their knowledge was constructed after and during each intervention. Finally, a representation of student knowledge was described in a Researcher-Generated Concept Map (RGCM). The following section (Section 3.9.2) describes each of the three representations of student knowledge and the ways in which the data were analysed.
3.9.2 Representing student knowledge - CPI, RLE, and RGCM
3.9.2.1 Concept profile inventories (CPI) Concept profileinventorie s, first developed by Erickson (1979; 1980), are a method of representing a student's knowledge states in relation to the accepted body of knowledge in a given domain, for example, heat, electricity, or light. CPIs have been used sucessfully in representing individuals' knowledge by other researchers, including Taylor (1997), who employed the method in representing pre-service teachers' understanding of various topics in the physical sciences; Rice (1991), who used them to represent Thai children's understanding of the concepts of health and illness; Rollnick and Rutherford (1990), who used them to represent Swazi primary school teachers' understandings of air and pressure; and Erickson (1979), who
127 represented children's conceptions of heat and temperature. Appendix H provides an example of a generic CPI developed from the data collected in Stage Three.
From each interview and student-generated concept map, a list of student concepts was compiled under fundamental categories to form a Pre-Visit CPI (Phase A), a Post-Visit CPI (Phase B), and a Post-Activity CPI (Phase C) for each of the 12 students considered in the main study. The fundamental categories emerged from the analysis of the interview transcripts, in addition to the student-generated concept maps which included any modification made by the students during the course of the interview. For example, in Erickson's (1979) study of children's conceptions of heat and temperature, the fundamental categories were: composition of heat, movement of heat, effects of heat, sources of heat, heat and matter.
The data sets were analysed according to the phase of the study to which they belonged, that is, the entirety of the pre-visit phase data for all twelve students were analysed prior to the post-visit and post-activity phase data. This was seen as important in order for the researcher to form a coherent view of students' understandings at each phase, unbiased by interpretations made in other phases. The detailed analysis of the data sets involved several steps.
First, the researcher replayed the audio recording of the pre-visit interviews and re examined the corresponding student-generated concept maps in order to refamiliarise himself with the student and the discussion they had.
Second, the concept maps were analysed by compiling a list of component concepts which the researcher believed the student possessed.
Third, the printed transcript was read and the researcher interpreted the student's knowledge, understandings, and the prior experiences. In all instances, students elaborated further on their concept maps and provided deeper insight into the understandings of electricity and magnetism. The researcher's interpretations of the
128 student's knowledge were annotated in the transcript margin in the form of brief notes and assertions. For the most part, the concept list generated from the concept maps mirrored closely that of the annotations generated from the researcher's analysis of the transcript.
Fourth, these processes were repeated for all twelve students, and, at the conclusion of the annotation process, fundamental categories were generated which seemed to encapsulate appropriately and categorise the students' knowledge and understandings. This analysis resulted in a total of five fundamental categories being generated for the CPI, four of which were related to the concept of electricity and magnetism, and the fifth was designated as alternative concepts. These categories were: 1.0 Properties of Magnets; 2.0 Earth's Magnetic Field, Compasses, and Application; 3.0 Properties of Electricity; and 4.0 Types of Electricity, Electricity Production, and Application.
Fifth, CPls were set up for each of the twelve students (AD1 through A12) in a word processor format, and the concepts which the researcher had interpreted each student to possess were sorted into the fundamental categories of the CPI. For the most part, students' own words were used to describe their own concepts and understandings.
Sixth, these same process steps were repeated for the post-visit and post-activity phases of the study, producing a total of 36 inventories.
Seventh, following the completion of the CPls for each of the twelve students in each of the three phases, a general CPI was constructed, which represented the fundamental categories across the set of twelve case studies. In many instances, the concepts of students were similar to the concepts others in the case study sets possessed. In such instances where the similarities between student concepts were deemed by the researcher to be sufficiently similar, they were condensed into a single subcategory. For example, the concept 1.3A Magnets can attract certain types of metal, was categorised under the fundamental category: 1.0A - Properties of
129 Magnets, and was held by nine students in the pre-visit phase of the study. Student statements such as: "Magnets attract just certain types of metal." - A03, "Magnets attract only some metals." - A04, "A magnet is something that attracts to metal or a special type of metal through magnetism. - AlO were all deemed sufficiently similar to be subsumed under this subcategory.
The CPls for each student were analysed for ways in which their knowledge was transformed across the three phases of the study. Inorder to reduce the complexity of the representations and more clearly identify changes in student knowledge and understanding, post-visit (Phase B) and post-activity (Phase C) CPls contained only those sets of knowledge and understandings which were deemed by the researcher to be in any way different from those of the subsequent phases of the main study. To this end, the CPls and RLEs should be read as sets to fully appreciate the extent of the knowledge transformations.
Five students from the twelve were selected for intensive case study. These students' data sets were carefully examined and the processes for knowledge construction were discerned by the researcher, using the theoretical frameworks described in Section 2.4.2 as basis for the interpretation. The interpretation of the knowledge construction processes, called "knowledge transformations," traced the development of concepts in, and across, the three phases of the study. Knowledge transformations were identifiedas part of Research Objective (B) and reported in Chapter 5, and described in details as part of Research Objective (C) and are reported in Chapter 6.
3.9.2.2 Related learning experience inventory (RLE) In addition to the CPI data sets, a supplementary data set called the Related Learning Experience (RLE) was identified, and, where possible, linked with identified concepts in the students' CPls . During the course of the pre-visit interview, students were asked how they came to "know" an idea or concept they had written on their map or articulated during the course of the interview. For
130 example, if a student held the concept magnets attract, he or she was asked how he or she came to know this piece of knowledge, by detailing the personal experience or experiences that prompted him or her to know this. Likewise, during the post-visit and post-activity interview phases, students were also probed as to how they came to "know" their conceptions. The pilot study demonstrated that, in some instances, students were not able to articulate the origins of their understandings, and to this end only RLEs which can be connected to a concept in the CPI are reported.
In essence, the RLE is an adjunct to the traditional use of the CPI as developed by Erickson (1979). In keeping with the human constructivist view that the processes of knowledge building are often gradual, incremental, and assimilative in nature and that changes in conceptual understanding are produced through the individual's exposure to successive experiences, which are interpreted in the light of prior understanding, the RLE was felt to be a necessary adjunct to the CPI in order to provide a more complete interpretation of the knowledge construction processes. This was particularly the case in this study, since the examination of knowledge construction processes was conducted over the course of a month during which students had numerous different experiences. Comparisons of individual student data sets between phases in part provided accounts of the processes by which knowledge was constructed. These data helped both the interpretation and description of the ways in which students' knowledge was transformed across the three phases of the study.
3.9.2.3 Researcher generated concept map (RGCM) The CPI and RLE were useful in describing the body of concepts students possessed, and the experiential events which students cited as being responsible for their current states of knowledge. However, as a result of the pilot study, the researcher came to the realisation that these representations of student knowledge, although powerful, were deficientin so far as they were somewhat linear and did not describe the ways in which knowledge elements were inter-connected. While student-generated concepts do include information pertaining to how such elements are interconnected, they do not fully encapsulate the extent of student knowledge of
131 a given domain. This fact is evidenced from the results of the pilot study (Section 4.3) where it was determined that: A student concept map alone is not necessarily a good predictor of student knowledge of a given topic. That is, a poorly-constructed map is not necessarily an indicator of low levels of knowledge. The additional step of synthesising an interpretation of students' knowledge which encapsulates the concepts they possess and the interconnecting relationships between those concepts, constituted the RGCMs. The sources for formulating this map included the student generated concept maps, their probing interviews, together with their CPI and RLE. Comparisons between each of the RGCMs for each student provided a description of how hislher knowledge changed as a result of their experiences.
The concept maps were redrawn using the Inspiration software package. Oval shaped, blue nodes represented students' original drawings; rounded-shaped rectangular, red nodes, were those drawn by students on their maps during the course of their probing interview, and rectangular-shaped, green nodes were those added by the researcher after analysis of the interview data sets. In order to improve the readability of the maps, rectangular nodes with a shaded left side represent a repeated node on the diagram to which interconnection should be directed. In keeping with the colour coding of the nodes, coloured interconnecting lines between nodes also represented student's original markings (blue), student's additions (red), and the researcher's additions (green). On occasions where the researchers felt the interconnections between nodes were weak or uncertain, links were denoted by dashed line. In similar fashion to the CPIs and RLEs, only new transformations not previously detailed on earlier maps were detailed in the form of rectangular nodes on subsequent maps. To this end, it is important to view the RGMC from each of the three phases as a set. Appendix H details an example of a database of information gathered from each student during the course of each of the three phases, while Figure 3.5 shows an example of a RGCM and the interconnected nature of a student's concepts.
132 electricity
Generalof& power$ aioctricity
CMnr,ir,gm.;> poi;;,r;ty,·f ;;mo;<.;r flfit'!;;t!:t:'!;I Whichpowers the motor cilf·:-C:j.:�l 3 r(,r)lor ':o�-ln-:. POW" electricity m Ir a magnet goes near a television it will ruin it beyondrepair n1;;Ql1t>>r>art> '':'(;mp<::s'' Figure 3.5. Sample researcher-generated concept map showing interconnected nature of concepts. 3.10 Limitations and Research Issues 3.10.1 Limitations Like all research studies, this study was limited in a number of ways, including, the duration of the data collection, number of participants, sensitising effects, and the contextual transferability of the outcomes. 3.10.1.1 Duration of data collection At the time of the data collection (August, 1997), the researcher was residing and working in Annapolis, Maryland, USA, and had to take a leave of absence from his employment and travel to Brisbane, Australia for the four-week data collection period. It should be reaffirmed that the researcher holds the view that learning is often gradual, incremental, and assimilative in nature, and that learning emergent from museum-based experiences occurs not only within the setting, but also is 133 dynamically reinterpreted in subsequent life experiences days, weeks, months, and years after the experience. Nevertheless, there was a limited amount of time available to the researcher to collect data of the students' learning experiences, by virtue of his employment commitments in the United States. Furthermore, there were practical limitations on the amount of time the researcher could spend intervening in the natural day-to-day activities of the classroom community, without unduly burdening the class by the research interventions. As it was, the teacher and students gave a considerable amount of their time to the study. Limitations are also realised in the duration students could be interviewed in accordance with their own classroom commitments and the limits of their own personal ability to concentrate and provide meaningful data. While there were some instances where the interview sessions could have been prolonged to collect additional data, an upper limit of 30 minutes per interview session was established as a conventional practice for the study. 3.10.1.2 Number o/ participants As described in Section 3.10.1.1, there were limits on the time available to the researcher for data collection and also limits on the intrusion into the classroom that the researcher felt was acceptable. To these ends, it follows that there were a limited number of students who could be included as part of rigorous investigation of the students' knowledge construction processes. In the limitations of time and acceptable classroom and school intervention, it was regarded by the researcher that one Year 7 class, and a selection of 12 students for intensive study was both manageable and likely to provide an adequate source of data. 3.10.1.3 Sensitisation It is acknowledged that the methods employed in this study, designed to provide an interpretation of students' knowledge and learning processes, were themselves interventions which likely caused knowledge construction and reconstruction. The very act of probing student knowledge at the three stages described previously, caused that knowledge to change in ways it ordinarily would 134 not if students experienced the Sciencentre and PV A interventions alone. This was because the concept mapping and interview activities required students to reflect about their understandings. It should be restated that the study's focus was not merely the effect of Sciencentre and PV As on learning, as it was accepted and expected that such experience caused changes to a student's knowledge. It was, however, primarily about the ways students construct their knowledge and understanding, and, as such, the interventions used to interpret knowledge and understanding were regarded as a natural part of the learning processes of the students under investigation, and formed part of the students' experiences which were subsequently interpreted by the researcher. 3.10.1.4 Contextual transferability The outcomes and interpretations of the main study are, in essence, limited to the context of the students within this study, since other age groups, contexts, and experiences will vary in the processes of knowledge construction. However, the outcomes are likely to be of interest and provide some clear messages to teachers, museum staff, and the science education community. 3.10.2 Ethics There were a number of ethical considerations which were envisioned at the time of conceptualising the study and also emergent during the course of data collection, which required careful consideration. These considerations included, parental and education department permission, equity of experience for all students, and the ethics of conserving students' current and developing alternative understandings without reseacher intervention to help students change their alternative views. 135 3.10.2.1 Parental and departmental permission Since the study was be carried out with students from a government school, it was necessary to seek the permission from their parents and/or guardians prior to participation in the study. Further, permission from the Queensland Department of Education was also required to implement Stage Three of this study at the school. 3.10.2.2 Equity of experience Although all students in the Year 7 class were able to participate in the concept mapping activities, visit the Sciencentre, and take part in the PVAs experiences, only twelve students were selected for intensive investigation of their knowledge construction processes. To this end, it was important that students not selected for intensive investigation did not feel that they were leftout of what was generally perceived to be a novel experience by the Year 7 class. Part of these feelings of novelty were produced by the researcher's interventions insofar as students under intensive investigation were taken out of their classroom and into an on-site Mobil Education Research Vehicle (MERV) which was especially designed for interviewing subjects, and was equipped with video and audio recording equipment. Furthermore, following each interview, students were rewarded with a lolly (small piece of candy), for the cooperation. So that equity was preserved, students not under intensive investigation had the opportunity to visit MERV in groups of three or four and were interviewed as a group for approximately 20 minutes about their reflections of the Sciencentre visit, PV As, and concept mapping exercises experiences. Also, all students in the class received equal quantities of lollies, which was deemed to be extremely important by students of the Year 7 class, as revealed by numerous comments they made to the researcher while he was visiting the school. 3.10.2.3 Conservation of alternative understandings On many occasions throughout the course of the data collection period, the researcher interpreted many conceptions that students held which were regarded as being alternative with respect to the accepted scientific views of electricity and magnetism. As the focus of the study was about students' construction of 136 knowledge, it was vitally important that students felt entirely comfortable with the researcher, his lines of questioning, and their own ability to express freely what they believed and understood of the topics without fear of judgement. To this end, the researcher went to great lengths not to judge or correct students' understandings during the course of the data collection period. So that student had the opportunity to develop understandings which were correct from the scientific perspective, at the conclusion of the data collection, the teacher was informed of these alternative views so that he could take them into consideration in the planning and conduct of future lesson about the topics. 3.12 Summary This chapter has described the methodology, methods, and procedure which was used to investigate the nature and character of students' construction of knowledge emergent from experiences in the informal context of the Sciencentre and subsequent classroom-based PV As. The study is interpretive in nature and employs methods, such as RLEs, which are in some respects untried hybrids in the field of investigating learning. Chapter four reports on the outcomes and conclusions of Stages One and Two of the study, and details the reseacher's initial beliefs about the development and PV As and on the testing of the methods proposed for use in this study. 137 Chapter Four Outcomes and Conclusions of Stages One and Two 4.1 Introduction As discussed in Chapter Three, the purposes of Stages One and Two of the study were to lay an informed foundation in preparation for Stage Three. Stage One of the study achieved this through establishing some general principles for development of educationally-effective classroom-based post-visit activities (PVAs), while Stage Two tested the methods to be used in the main study such that informed modifications could be made to improve data-gathering strategies and approaches. The following sections report on the findings, implications, and conclusions of Stages One and Two of the study. 4.2 Stage One: Principles for Development of Post-visit Activities 4.2.1 Background The purpose of Stage One was to establish principles for the design of educationally-effective classroom-based PVAs to support visitors' museum-based experiences. This was vital since no extensive theory-based principles for the design of such activities had yet been elaborated in the literature and thus it was necessary to establish a set of principles prior to the implementation of Stage Three of the research. Design principles for effective PV As were important elements in establishing internal validity for the main study. Furthermore, the researchergained valuable insights from these experiences, which clarifiedthe research objectives for the main study. 139 During the period September through December 1995, the researcher developed 17 written PV As in support of the Signals thematic exhibition about signals and signal processing produced by the Reuben Fleet Science Center (RFSC), San Diego, California. The principles for the design of PVAs supporting visitors' science centre experiences were established as a product of the researcher's immersion in the science centre environment, the actual task of developing the Signals PV As, and his close association with the RFSC staff during the development process. The centre staff with whom the researcher liaised included the director, education officers, exhibit developers, and in-gallery facilitators and presenters. Their different perspectives were generally complementary and together provided a coherent account which helped the researcher come to a deeper understanding of the issues involved, thus aiding the continuous refinement of the principles for development of the PV As. 4.2.2 Procedure The Signals exhibition at RFSC consisted of a series of 43 interactive exhibit elements which portrayed the diversity of signals and aimed to provide visitors with an understanding of the basic principles that underlie the transmission, storage, and retrieval of information. During the course of the three-month period at RFSC, 17 written PV As were developed with the aim of further developing students' knowledge and understanding of the scientificprinciples underlying Signals. The development of the PV As strove to be consistent with a constructivist framework of learning (Section 2.4), drawing on visitors' self-reported experiences within the exhibition and also building upon those scientific facts and principles on which the exhibition was developed. The activities were designed for use by teachers in classroom environments, but, in some instances, could equally be facilitated as take-home activities. The developed activities were intended for visitors aged 12 to 15 years. The underlying aim of the activities was to develop and enhance students' knowledge of science concepts underlying signal processing 140 exhibits. Appendix D contains examples of three of the seventeen activities which were developed. Initially, the scientificknowledge and understanding relating to signals and signal processing for a sample of approximately 50 visitors in the age range 12 to 15 years were informally assessed. This was achieved by informally interviewing5 visitors about their understanding of the concepts portrayed by the Signals exhibits afterthey had interacted with the exhibits. As a result of these interviews, the researcher came to appreciate the understandings which visitors were gaining from their experiences with the exhibits within the context and time-frame of their museum field trip visit. This enabled the development of a range of PV As that could build upon on visitors' newly-modifiedand/or pre-existing understandings. In the process of the development of these signal processing PV As, the existing expertise of key personnel was capitalised upon, including those who had prior experience in PV A development, exhibit designers, and teachers. Consultation with these key persons was particularly important in the initial stages of design as well as in the evaluation process of these PV As, where these persons reviewed the developed activities. In addition to talking with visitors in the target age group, the researcher also spoke with teachers who were accompanying their classes to the science centre. Teachers were asked about the attributes of PV As which they saw as being important. Information gathered from these sources helped formulate the general principles for the development of educationally-effective, classroom-based, PV As. 4.2.3 Outcomes and principles for development The researcher developed four guiding principles for the development of educationally-effective, classroom-based, PV As based on the three month experience. These principles are stated as follows and emerged from the understandings as of January 1996: 5 Refer to Section 3.6.2 - The Probing Interview, for a description of the Informal Interview technique. 141 1. Post-visit activities should be built upon students' experiences during their visit to the science centre in ways designed to consolidate and/or extend their understanding of the scientificthemes portrayed in the galleries and their classroom-based curriculum. 2. Post-visit activities should be designed in the light of contextual constraints of implementation time, preparation time, availability of resources, and the formal education context in which both students and teachers operate. 3. Post-visit activities should be related to the broader scientificprinciples underlying exhibits rather than the exhibits themselves. 4. Post-visit activities should be designed so that they encourage the facilitator to respond flexibly to students' emerging and developing understandings, avoiding a simply prescriptive approach. The following sections consider these principles in the light of the theoretical context in which they are embedded and the practical procedures which developers of PVAs may implement in the formation of such post-visit experiences. 4.2.3.1 Principle 1 Post-visit activities should be built upon students' experiences during their visit to the science centre in ways designed to consolidate and/or extend students' understanding of the scientific themes portrayed in the galleries and their classroom based curriculum. This view is consistent with the Ausubelian view of knowledge transformation and progressive differentiation (Ausubel, 1969) and also that of more recent theorists (Hewson, 1981, 1982; Mintzes & Wandersee, 1998; Mintzes et al., 1997; Posner et al., 1982; Valsiner & Leung, 1994) described in Section 2.4, and the researcher's views described in Section 1.2. That is, existing prior knowledge A, combined with new information a, gained through science centre experience(s), 142 transforms A and a into A'a' . Given the researcher's previously justified stance, that new knowledge and understandings are developed in the light of the old, A'a' is the logical basis from which to develop PV A experiences. In this view, the PVA experience(s) will progressively differentiate an individual's newly formed understanding a'A', through new information b, the PVA experience(s), thus transforming it into b'a 'A '. It is through the process of capitalising on the students' knowledge base that the PV A experiences will optimally aid in further construction and reconstruction of knowledge. Clearly, it is the desired intention of designers and facilitators of the science centre and PV A experiences that the resulting knowledge transformations are constructed in ways which provide greater meaning for the individuals and are also consistent with the accepted scientific views of science. It is reasonable to assume that students' understandings of at least some of the scientific facts and principles portrayed by the exhibits will be transformed in varying degrees as a result of their science centre experiences. However, the extent of such transformations are difficult to predict given that changes are not entirely predictable, quantifiable, or likely to result in a single outcome which can be fully defined prior to, or as a result of, such experience.6 Nevertheless, the types and extent of knowledge transformations can be determined in part after science centre experiences through a variety of means, such as in-gallery interviews, focus groups, surveys, and like techniques of knowledge probing and assessment procedures (Falk & Dierking, 1992; Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Rennie & McClafferty, 1996). In short, an analysis designed to ascertain students' understandings following their science centre experiences is essential prior to PV A development. At the RFSC, this was achieved by the researcher informally interviewing? visitors after theyhad interacted with exhibits about their understanding of the concepts portrayed by those exhibits. However, this could also be achieved in a more naturalistic manner as part of a classroom-based debriefing immediately following the field trip visit. Teachers 6 Refer to Section 1.2.1 A Framework for Student's Construction of Knowledge. ? Refer to Section 3.5.2 for details of the Informal Interviewing technique 143 could facilitate a number of discussion-type activities which provide a forum in which students could articulate their experiences. For example, identifying and discussing those exhibits which were interesting and/or puzzling to students; identifying and discussing students' most memorable experiences, are but two strategies for ascertaining the states of students' knowledge. This teacher-facilitated action is in itself a PV A experience which can promote knowledge construction and reconstruction. It is on the basis of such understandings that teachers and museum educators can crafteducationally effective PVAs in informed ways which capitalise on those understandings. 4.2.3.2 Principle 2 Post-visit activities should be designed in the light of contextual constraints of implementation time, preparation time, availability of resources, and the formal education context in which both students and teachers operate. In the same way that field-trip visits to museum settings can be considered a naturalistic part of the school-based experience, from a teacher's perspective it follows logically that these experiences could also be conducted in the classroom-based environment in a naturalistic manner (Bitgood, 1991; Griffin & Symington, 1997; Griffin, 1998). Furthermore, the researcher would argue that there are definitebenefits for conducting PV A experiences contextualised within the classroom-based curriculum. Linking the experiences to the curriculumprovides the advantage of a context to which the new experiences can be related, which will likely improve the chances of meaningful learning occurring (Anderson, 1998; Bitgood, 1989; Griffin, 1998; Wollins et aI., 1992). If PVA experiences are to be facilitated naturalistic ally within the context of a school-based setting, then it clearly behoves the developers of such experiences to consider the nature and characteristics of these contexts. Typically speaking, school-based contexts are constrained by limits of available time to conduct classroom-based experiments and activities and are limited in the availability of physical and material resources. Teachers are also limited in terms of the time available to prepare resources and experiences for their students 144 and may be limited by their own scientificexpertise relating to the principles underlying the science centre exhibits and phenomena. Furthermore, one might validly conjecture that, generally speaking, a teacher's pedagogical knowledge of how to develop and facilitate educationally effective post-visit experiences is also limited (Griffin, 1998). Finally, it would seem entirely reasonable if PVAs contain instruction for students to follow, that this information be in a form which is easily comprehensible. These contextual constraints were both determined and, in some instances, confirmed afterliaising with key centre staff and approximately 15 teachers on the RFSC gallery floor. Teachers who were accompanying their class groups to RFSC were informally interviewed about what they considered were the important attributes of a PVA experience. On the basis of these discussions, it was concluded, that PVAs must be easy and relatively non-time-consuming for teachers to prepare; should utilise materials which are readily accessible to the teacher; be able to be implemented in an appropriate time, that is, over the duration of a lesson; and must contain instructions which can be easily followed and be understood by students. In short, the needs of the teacher and the students must be considered in terms of the formal education context in which they operate (Anderson, 1998). 4.2.2.3 Principle 3 Post-visit activities should be related to the broader scientificpr inciples underlying the exhibits, rather than the exhibits themselves. If, as intimated in the discussion of Principle 2, the science centre experiences are considered as a naturalistic part of a wider curriculum-based experience, it follows that the development of PVAs should be designed in view of that curriculum. The researcher, and other researchers in the field(Bitgood, 1991, 1989; Griffin, 1998; Javlekar, 1989; Lucas, 1998; Stoneberg, 1981; Wollins et aI., 1992), argue strongly that PV A experiences should be seen as one of many supporting experiences which help develop knowledge and understandings in the light of the wider school, curriculum, and life experiences. From a teacher's perspective, PVAs should be 145 developed from the basis of student knowledge which has resulted from the science centre experiences, but contextualised within the wider science curriculum. Part of the process of achieving this is to deconstruct the original science concepts the exhibits attempted to convey. The researcher's experience at RFSC was one which considered the development of PVAs largely from the perspective of the science centre staff, and of the researcher as the developer of classroom-based PV A experiences. In this sense, the science centre staff and the researcher were interpreting the needs and wants of teachers as part of the development process. This interpretation is laden with the epistemological and philosophical beliefs of both the science centre staff and the researcher, which may or may not be entirely congruent with those of teachers visiting the centre with school groups. In this sense, the PV A experiences which teachers may need or want for their students may not match those which were developed from the interpretation of those needs and wants. Ultimately, the more congruent the views of the developers of PV As with those who facilitate those experiences, such as teachers, the greater the likelihood that they will be educationally effective for those who experience them (Anderson, 1998). In practical terms, the researcher undertook a process of deconstructing original scientific constructs which the Signals exhibition attempted to portray in three ways in order to develop the PV As. First, the original development proposals which detailed the aims and objectives of the Signals exhibition were reviewed. These documents contained the original intentions of the exhibit designers and planners of the thematic exhibition in terms of what each exhibit element was designed to communicate. This was important, since the original stated aims and objectives of completed exhibit elements are not always apparent to visitors, but nevertheless are recognisable in the exhibit. Second, the researcher individually reviewed and assessed each of the Signals exhibit elements in terms of the main underlying concepts underpinning them. These main concepts were further dissected, and an inventory of the scientificconcepts and principles was compiled 146 for the entire exhibition. Third, teachers were informally interviewed to ascertain their ideas about the sorts of post-visit experience they thought might be useful in the light of the school and curriculum-based objectives. PV As which attempt to meet these needs would arguably be of greater relevance to students and build upon their knowledge in the same ways as described in Principle 1. In summary, the developers of educationally effective PV As need to consider the wider context of the students' school, curriculum, and life experiences. 4.2.3.4 Principle 4 Post-visit activities should be designed so that they encourage the facilitator to respond flexibly to students' emerging and developing understandings, avoiding a simply prescriptive approach. Facilitators should be sensitive to students' knowledge and understanding so they can direct the activity in a manner which will optimally aid students in constructing and reconstructing their knowledge and understandings. In short, teachers must be both willing, and able to be flexiblein the approach that they adopt when facilitating the activities in order to avoid PV As being simply prescriptive. A teacher who is able to respond to a student's knowledge and understandings prior to and during the implementation of the activity will be likely to provide experiences which are influential in promoting further construction of knowledge and understanding. 4.2.4 Conclusions and implications of Stage One From the results and experiences of Stage One, the researcher proposed definitecriteria for developing PV As which provide experiences for the further development of knowledge relating to scientificprinciple s, facts and phenomena portrayed in a science centre. These principles can be categorised as both pedagogical and theoretical and were used in the development of the PV As used in the main study. Chapter Seven will revisit and reconsider these principles in the light of the findings of the main study - Stage Three. 147 4.3 Stage Two: Pilot Study: Data Gathering and Data Analysis Techniques 4.3.1 Background The essence of the pilot study was to test the methods used to examine students' construction of knowledge and to use the experience gained from this pilot study to modify and improve the data gathering and analysis procedures to be used in the main study. Further, the pilot study also provided the researcher with valuable cues and in sights concerning the nature of students' knowledge transformation and learning processes which were followed up in the main study. The details and schedule of the pilot study have been discussed previously in detail in Section 3.6.2. Information pertaining to the schedule of activities which constituted the pilot study can be found in Table 3.3. The pilot study was conducted over a period of one month in July, 1996 with the same school and teacher (but not the same class) involved in the subsequent main study in August of the following year. 4.3.2 Objectives The objectives of the Stage Two pilot study included the following eight specific objectives: 1) to ascertain whether Year 7 students could successfully generate concept maps after a one-hour training session; 2) to determine the effectiveness of student-generated concept maps as a method for revealing knowledge about a given topic in science, namely, magnetism; 3) to determine the effectiveness of the semi-structured interview protocol developed for probing student knowledge (Table 3.3); 4) to ascertain whether the general structure of the scheduling protocol 148 (Table 3.1) was appropriate, effective, and realistic for use in the main study; 5) to ascertain whether probing students during the course of a semi structured interview could enable them to recall and articulate the experiences by which they became cognisant of their knowledge; 6) to determine whether CPIs and RLEs could be developed for individual students, and assess the appropriateness of these methods of representing students' knowledge in the light of interpreted data and the epistemology of the researcher; 7) to determine whether an assessment of the features of student generated concept maps are an appropriate selection criterion to use to select students as case study subjects in the main study; and 8) to gain some initial insights concerning the knowledge transformation and learning processes, which might be followed up in the main study. 4.3.3 Participants in the pilot study The twenty-eight (28) Year 7 students who participated in the pilot study were from a metropolitan school in Brisbane. The class consisted of roughly equal numbers of males and females, primarily Caucasian, from a middle-class socio economic background. This group was selected for three reasons. First, the students selected were considered to be typical of the greater population of upper primary students in metropolitan schools. Upper primary school students constitute the largest subset of visitors to science centres in Australia, consequently the findings of the study will be of interest to teachers and museum staff. Second, three weeks prior to the pilot study, the class had completed their Year 7 science unit dealing with the topics of electricity and magnetism. This presented an ideal group of students who had recently participated in a rich diversity of classroom-based experiences producing new understandings which could be examined using techniques the researcher believed to be effective for revealing and interpreting knowledge. Third, the school staff and classroom teacher were recommended by 149 Queensland Science Teachers Association and University staff as having a good reputation as science educators, and were also willing to participate in the pilot and subsequent main study. 4.3.4 Procedure On day one of the pilot study, all students participated in a one-hour training session designed to equip them with adequate skills with which to construct concept maps in any concept domain. The process by which this training occurred is detailed in Table 3.2. Following a one-hour lunch break, all students developed their own concept maps representing their understandings of magnetism, using the skills and techniques developed fromthe morning training session. Afterthe completion of their concept maps, six students were selected to be interviewed, to enable the researcher to test the interviewing techniques detailed in Table 3.3. These students were selected on the basis of their concept maps in terms of presence or absences of: organisation, structure, level of detail, the key concepts, and evidence of alternative fr ameworks. Over the course of two days, these six students were interviewed, each fo r a period of 30 minutes, about their knowledge and understanding of magnetism, using their individually generated concept maps as a stimulus fo r the discussion. The interviews were audio taped and later transcribed fo r analysis. Students' ideas and understandings were identified fr om the interview transcripts and categorised to fo rm Concept ProfileInven tories (CPI)8, while the experiences which they believed were responsible fo r the development of their understandings were categorised to fo rm their Related Learning Experience (RLE) profile. The fundamental categories fo r the CPI and RLE emerged fr om the data sets. CPI categories included: Properties of Magnets, Applications of Magnets, Magnetic Phenomena, Theory of Magnets, and Alternative Frameworks. RLE categories included: Classroom theory lesson, Classroom experiments, Home-based experiments, TV, Books, and Personal observations. 8 Refer to Table 4.1 on page 154 for an example of a epI. 150 4.3.5 Pilot study case studies - Devin, Nevill, and Kathy This section presents case studies of three of the six students, to exemplify the general findings of the pilot study. Devin, N evill, and Kathy (pseudonyms) all developed different styles of concept maps. A detailed examination of their cases provides examples of issues that emerged relating to the methods and analysis which were evident across the wider sample of students examined in the pilot study. Further, the case studies reported here provided some insight about the nature of knowledge construction, which helped cue the researcher to be aware of certain types of knowledge transformations in the main study. 4. 3.5.1 Devin Throughout his entire primary schooling, Devin had received assistance aimed at improving his academic skills from the STLD teacher (Special Teacher for Learning Difficulties). This involved him being withdrawn from the class for one or two half-hour sessions weekly, allowing one-to-one interaction focused primarily on literacy skills. Numeracy skills were supported through a special 'in class' program. His reading age at the time of the study was assessed by the STLD as being approximately 3.5 years below his chronological age. Devin, being the youngest in his family and approximately 10 years younger than his nearest sibling, often related better to adults than to his peers. His classroom teacher described Devin as a student who enjoyed art activities and was fairly good at spatial representation. Furthermore, he was a student who was skilful with his hands, and especially enjoyed 'hands-on' science activities. His teacher considered Devin to have a positive attitude towards science, and to be a student who looked forward to class science activities with enthusiasm, both whole class demonstrations and individual/group experiments. Devin was selected as one of the case study students for the pilot study on the basis that the concept map he generated was conceptually impoverished in comparison with other students' maps. In addition, his map showed evidence that he 151 possessed some alternative conceptions relating to the topic of magnetism, which appeared interesting and worthy of further investigation. Devin's hand-drawn concept map, like many other students' maps, was often difficultto read, and, to this end, it was deemed necessary to be redrawn by the researcher to improve its clarity and reduce obvious ambiguity without detracting from the intended meanings. Redrawing students' hand-drawn concept maps was adopted as standard procedure in this study. Students' own words and links were used in the redrawn concept maps, except where the written words on the original maps were unintelligible. In these cases, the intended meaning of words and statements were asked of students during the course of subsequent interviews and their intended meaning was encapsulated in the redrawn computer-generated maps. Figures 4.1a and 4.1b show Devin's hand-drawn concept map and his concept map redrawn by the researcher. These maps showed that Devin had an understanding of the fact that magnets have two poles - North and South; the Earth has two poles - a North pole and a South pole; that copper is a metallic substance; and evidence of some alternative understandings which associated magnets with the process of hypnotism. In addition, it appeared that Devin had some undefined understanding of electromagnets ("Etlolmgt"), by virtue of the fact that this was included on his concept map, but did not have any associated connections to other concept nodes. 152 Figure 4. 1 a. Devin's hand-drawn concept map of his understandings of magnetism. Poles are part of North Magnels are poles Poles are part of South Hypnosis Is done by magnels Figure 4. 1h. Devin's concept map redrawn by the researcher. 153 Following a 30 minute probing interview with Devin, it was clear that his understandings of the topic of magnetism were much more detailed than apparent from the concept map which he constructed. Furthermore, it was evident that Devin's concept map provided a powerful and effective stimulus to direct and sustain the conversation about magnetism. Table 4.1 represents his CPI and RLE, in which many understandings of magnetism, and the identified experiences which Devin regarded to be responsible for these understandings, are summarised. In numerous instances, the Related LearningExperiences could not be matched with students' concepts. In these instances, the student concept was annotated with a "?" symbol in the RLE Inventory. Table 4.1 Concept Profile Inventory & Related Learning Experience fo r Devin Fundamental category Student concept (CPI) Related learning experience (RLE) Properties of Magnets The Earth is a magnet Classroom theory lesson Magnets can attract and repel one Classroom theory lesson another Magnets have a 'North' and 'South' pole Classroom theory lesson The Earth has a 'North' and a 'South' ? pole. Magnets have magnetic fields Classroom theory lesson Magnets attract metal ? Magnetic field can pass through different Home-based experiment types of solid materials Magnetic Phenomena Breaking a magnet in half yields two Classroom experiment magnets Bashing a magnet against a hard surface Classroom theory lesson decreases its magnetic strength Electricity can make a magnet ? Magnetic field intensity increases in the ? presence of other magnets Theory of Magnetism Magnets 'contain' magnetic domains Classroom theory lesson Alternative Frameworks The rotation of the Earth is somehow ? related to its magnetic field Magnets are used to hypnotise people TV, books Electrical generators have nothing to do ? with magnets 154 During the course of the probing interview, Devin was able to articulate numerous understandings of magnets and magnetism, most of which appeared to be developed from his recent experiences with the magnetism unit recently taught in his classroom. Nevertheless, there were a number of understandings which he claimed he developed from sources outside of the classroom. Examples of this included the fact that he understood that magnets were an integral part of the process of hypnotising people, and the fact that magnetic fields were able to penetrate solid material, such as wood, plastic, glass, and water. In addition to his alternative understandings relating to magnets and hypnotism, Devin was of the belief that the rotation of the Earth was somehow related to its magnetic field. However, when pressed to elaborate his response, he was not entirely clear about the association. The following excerpts provide some insight into both of these alternative conceptions ("D" denotes the researcher and "De" the student, Devin). D Okay. So you said here that hypnotism "is done" by magnets. De Yeah. D Where did you learn that? De I learned that on a show which explained how hypnotism is shown and a book told us ...told me how it's done. D Any idea how they do that? De They use two heavy magnets and they put it, they said that they put them between, the person was between the North and or South, or South and North one, and it used to, he'd say something andthey'd just go to sleep or whatever, and it would start from there. D Okay. You said before that, you said something about, magnetism and the way the Earthspi ns? Canyou just tell me a little bit more about that? De The poles, the South pole and the North pole contract I think, and it spins the Eartharound het sun andmakes the world spin around. D Okay. So if the Earthwasn't a magnet we couldn't get it to spin? De No. D Okay. So when you say the word "contract" what do you actually mean by that? De They, the urn, the South pole andthe North pole make like a bridge to join together and they straightenup like all the lines to make it contract together. D Okay. What kind of lines are these? De Urn,they 're um ...um ... D Lines going from the North to the South pole? Is that what you mean? De Yeah they are lined, all the urn, lines which arein metal and all the other substances are jumbled up and the poles of the magnet straighten them around andput them back together. 155 Due to the fact that Devin had poor literacy skills for his age, and that his teacher reported he enjoyed art activities and had fairly good spatial representation abilities, it seems appropriate that he resorted to graphical representation to express his ideas on his concept map. Hence, his drawing of magnets and fish tanks with a magnet were his attempt to communicate his ideas in ways which were more easily expressed than the concept mapping technique he was taught on the morning of the pilot study (See Figure 4.1). The following excerpt demonstrates some of the meaning which Devin had attempted to communicate through his diagrams. D I am interested in your little diagrams here. You've got a horseshoe magnet here with some little lines sort of radiating out. What does that mean? [Researcher points to Devin' s drawing in the upper right hand side of his map] De That's the contract, urn,"cont ractance" pulling something to it, from somewhere. D Okay, and what's this little diagram here telling me? It's got sort of like a stand and you've got a tank of water or something? [Researcher points to Devin's drawing in the middleright hand side of his concept map.] De Yeah,it' s a tankof water which is showing that magnets can penetrate things through water, it's also ... D Okay, so you're saying the magnet force can move through different objects? De Vh-huh. D Anything else does it move through? De It can move through wood, urnplastic, not metal. D How do you know that? De Because if you slipped through metal, if you put it, try and put a magnet through metal it won't because the metal will 'contract' to the magnet. D But how did you know the magnetic force or whatever these lines are can work through, through wood and through water and those sorts of things? De We experimented at school with water and, other materials. D So what did you actually do? De Well, we got a, we got a magnet, you put a magnet on top of a desk and we put, a piece of bluetack with a piece of string on the bottom, with a paperclip tied to the end and we cut the string so there was about that much room between the magnet so the paperclip still, the string stretched, and then we just slipped things through there to see if they would go through so ... D So you put things in between the magnet and the paperclip? De Yeah. To see if the paperclip would fall down or not. D And things like ...what? De Wooden rulers, books, we put, I've tried water, that, by myself once. D You tried that by yourself? De Yeah. D You just get a magnet from your fridge or something? Or what did you do? De Oh I got a horseshoe magnet and I put in the water under the tank, and then I put a paperclip under the water tank and then it stayed there. It didn't fall off. 156 D Oh so you did your experiment at home? De Vh-huh. This excerpt also clearly demonstrates Devin's ability to connect his classroom experiences, where he was involved in testing a magnetic field's ability to "pass through" solid materials, with his previous, personal, out-of-class experience of testing a magnet's ability to attract a metal paper clip through glass and water. It also provides some supporting evidence to suggest that the concept mapping method which allowed students to express their understandings diagrammatically, combined with the probing interview which permitted elaboration of those understandings, was effective in providing insight into Devin's learning both in terms of product and process. In considering the methods used to reveal and interpret Devin's knowledge, several conclusions may be drawn. First, Devin's understandings of the topic of magnetism were drawn primarily from his classroom experiences, but not to the exclusion of out-of-school experiences. Second, Devin possessed a number of interesting alternative understandings, some of which could be traced back to identifiable past experiences. This confirmed that he was able to recall and articulate the experiences by which he became cognisant of his knowledge and suggested that this strategy was potentially valuable for the main study. However, not every concept held by Devin could be traced back to an identifiable past experience. Third, Devin's concept map did not adequately represent the knowledge and understanding he possessed about the topic of magnetism. Furthermore, it was speculated that, due to his poor literacy skills and preferences for graphical representation, he had resorted to drawing to communicate his understandings. Despite this, the combined methods of the diagrammatic representation of understanding and the probing interview were effective in providing in sights into Devin's learning. Fourth, it was evident that Devin's concept map provided a powerful and effective stimulus to direct and sustain the conversation about magnetism. Finally, it was evident that the data, gathered by these means, showed that Devin had constructed knowledge, demonstrated by the fact that he had integrated and made appropriate conceptual links between his classroom-based 157 understandings of the properties of magnets with other non-school-based experiences. 4.3.5.2 Nevill Nevill came to the school where the study was being conducted from another state twelve months prior to the investigation, and, as a result of the transition, he experienced some difficulties in adjusting to the new school and different curriculum. Both parents were very supportive in helping Nevill through the academic and personal difficulties he had recently been experiencing. Nevill was regarded by his teacher as an intense child with a strong determination to succeed, and an overly anxious concern about any element of school work that he had difficulty in mastering. His teacher categorised Nevill as being slightly above average in his academic abilities as comparedwith his peers, and he completed all aspects of Year 7 level work very successfully. His teacher also regarded Nevill as one who asked intelligent, probing questions in the science area, showing a genuine interest and demonstrating quite mature thought processes. Nevill was considered polite and courteous, eager to please, and he followed to the letter any instructions given, especially in science experimental work. In the initial stages of the concept mapping activity about magnetism, Nevill and some other students expressed some concerns about having been absent from school on some days when the magnetism unit had been taught. This concern implied that class absence would detrimentally affect the quality of the concept map that students were asked to produce. At that stage of the activity, Nevill and the other students were reassured by the researcher that whatever they produced would be satisfactory since there was no one correct or unique concept map which could be produced. In addition, they were encouraged to think widely about the science topic and not restrict the expression of their understanding to just that of their classroom based experiences. 158 Nevill was selected as one of the case study students for the pilot study on the basis that his concept map appeared to be highly organised in nature. In addition, it appeared, on the basis of the concept map alone, that Nevill did not possess any alternative conceptions about the topic of magnetism. It was felt that these facets would make Nevill a student worthy of further investigation to determine whether or not his understandings were in fact as organised as his concept map suggested, and whether he possessed alternative understandings not depicted in his concept map. Figures 4.2a and 4.2b show Nevill's hand-drawn concept map and his concept map redrawn by the researcher. ..,, -- -:"- ...... / " / '\ I Magnetism \ , I '- / ..... -" ----.- Figure 4.2a. Nevill's hand-drawn concept map of his understandings of magnetism. 159 North and Norlh or South and South I1Ipel �- � // / Magn." attract . �Th ...... frldll· comp••• magn... � �'-. // Comp...... Loadatone le • ma"nat attracted by loadatona Ilk•• fridge magnet � // � � // Figure 4.2h. Nevill's concept map redrawn by the researcher. These figures show that Nevill had an understanding that magnets have two poles - North and South; that like poles repel and unlike poles attract; the Earth is like a giant magnet; magnets attract compasses; magnets are made from metal; magnets attract metal; and lodes tone is a type of magnetic rock. Following a 30 minute probing interview with Nevill, and after analysis of his interview transcript, it was clear that his understandings of the topic of magnetism were much more detailed than those expressed in the concept map which he constructed. Furthermore, it was also evident that Nevill's concept map provided an effective stimulus to direct and sustain the conversation about magnetism. Table 4.2 represents his CPI and RLE, which summarise many understandings, and the experiences which Nevill regarded as being responsible for such understandings. 160 Table 4.2 Concept Profile Inventory & Related Learning Experience fo r Nevill Fundamental category Student concept (CPI) Related learning experience (RLE) Properties of Magnets The Earth is a magnet Conversation with teacher Magnets can attract and repel one another Home-based experiment. Classroom experiment Magnets have a 'North' and 'South' pole Classroom theory lesson Like poles repel and unlike poles attract ? Magnets attract only certain types of metal Home-based experiment. Classroom experiment Magnets have magnetic fields Classroom theory lesson Compasses are attracted to magnets Classroom theory lesson Compasses point the direction of the Classroom theory lesson Earth's magnetic field Lodestone is type of magnet Classroom theory lesson Applications of Magnets An electromagnet is a type of magnet Classroom experiment Electromagnets are made with a bolt Classroom experiment wrapped with wire which is connected to electricity Magnetic Phenomena Magnetic field can pass through different Classroom experiment types of materials A large magnetic field is required to pass ? through a thick solid material Metal can be magnetised Classroom experiment Breaking a magnet in half yields two Classroom experiment magnets Alternative Frameworks Magnets attract more than they repel ? Fridge magnets don't have a 'North' or a Home-based experiment 'South' pole Magnets only have fields in the presence ? of other magnets Analysis of Nevill's concept map and interview transcript reveals that he regarded the high level of organisation and symmetry of his map to be a "fluke." However, on a deeper analysis of his comments, it appears that he had constructed the map about two dominant concepts, that is, "Magnet" and "Attract." The concept of "Attract" is the most interconnected idea within the map itself. In fact, it appears that the attraction property of a magnet was so central to his understandings that he believes that magnets attract more "often" than they repel. The following excerpt details Nevill's views of the development and nature of his concept map. 161 D Well let's have a look at your map. First thing I wantyou to do, Nevill, is just give me the "Cook's tour" that means just give me the two minute tour of your map andju st pretend you are at a "show and tell" and tell me all about it. Just tell me about it. N Well Ijust did the part ... it was sort of a fluke, like to do it symmetrical, urn, I just like, "attracting," the poles attract and, the North pole, North and North repel, North and South attract. Magnets attract metal, some sorts of metal, um... the, compass is attracted, hang on, the compass is attracted by magnets, like the Earth, andurn, lodestone is what, I guess it's a magnetised sort of stone I guess, and urn, I just like that French bit that's all, and urn North and North, I think I've said North and Northrepel. The Earth I think, the Earth is a giant magnet, I think. That's about all, I think. D Okay. When I asked you to do this map, whereabouts was the first place that you started when you cut all these bits of paper? Where did you start? N Oh magnet, magnetism ... D Magnetism and then? N ...then magnet Earth, most things, oh actually most things are, centred around "attract" because that's what magnets do, so ... D Right okay, so do magnets attract more than they repel? N Urn, yeah, I'd say like, I don't think they attract copper or anything. D Okay, so, you set this out very, very nicely. Is there any reason why you' ve ...? N No, it was a total fluke. D It was a total fluke? Okay. So would it be fair to say that when you think about the word "magnet" the firstthing that comes to mind is "attract?" I just notice all the arrows going to "attract" here? N Yeah, "attract," yeah. D Okay. But "repel" doesn't come to mind so much, it's sort of stuck over there at the edge? N Yeah, it's urn, because I guess all magnets, the thing about magnets is that they attract other metals, so, "attract." Despite the fact there were was no evidence of alternative frameworks in Nevill's concept map, several misconceptions about magnetism were revealed by the interview, including the fact that magnets attract more than they repel; two magnets, placed close together, are required to produce a magnetic field; and the fact that fridge magnets don't have a 'North' or a 'South' pole. Nevill described some discontinuities in his understanding that he had become cognisant of while comparing his experiences and knowledge of the properties of fridge magnets with his classroom-based knowledge of bar magnets. In wrestling with his ideas of the polarity properties of these two types of magnets, his classroom-based understandings appeared to force him to conclude that fridge magnets do not have 162 polarity. The development of these understandings is exemplified by the following excerpt from Nevill's interview: D This stuff about attracting and repelling, are you saying that you learned most of this in class but, have you ever had experience when you were younger, just mucking around with magnets and knowing that they attract and repel? N Yeah,I think so. D Can you recall anything specific? N No I don't think so, because I don't think fridge magnets do that, I haven't... D They don't attract and repel? N No I don't...I think they only ...I' ve never actually seen the North and the South pole on a fridge magnet. I've tried it, but it never actually repelled, it always grabbed on. Oh no, hang on, unless you face to the back, like that, but I don't think, I don't think they do, they attract. D Okay. So what I'm trying to figure out is did you know about attracting and repelling before you got into Mr. Wallace's class? N Yeah,I knew the basics sort of thing, I knew that a fridge magnet wouldn't pick up a certain type of metal, because it's basic ...repelling, because it wasn't attracted to that metal but, not like as I know it now. D So, but how did you know? Was it through mucking around with magnets? N Yeah. With fridge magnets. Just playing with them. In considering the methods used to reveal and interpret Nevill's knowledge, several conclusions may be drawn. First, Nevill' s understandings of the topic of magnetism were drawn primarily from his classroom experiences as evidenced by his RLE, but not to the exclusion of out-of-school experiences. Initially, students contextualised their understandings of magnetism largely in terms of these classroom-based experiences. Therefore, it would seem prudent to modify the concept mapping training program in the main study to reassure students that there was no one correct or unique concept map which could be produced. Furthermore, the program should also emphasise and encourage students to think widely about the science topic and not restrict the expression of their understanding to just that of their classroom-based experiences. Second, Nevill possessed a number of interesting alternative understandings, none of which was evident in his concept map, but which were later revealed using the probing interview technique. Nevill's concept map did not adequately reflectthe knowledge and understanding he possessed about the topic of magnetism. These facts emphasise the strength of the combined concept mapping and probing interview techniques that can more 163 adequately reveal and allow the researcher to interpret students' knowledge. Third, the probing methods used in the interview were fruitful in enabling Nevill to recall and articulate the experiences by which he became cognisant of his knowledge, but he was not able to recall or identify experiences for every concept he held. Finally, it is evident that Nevill had actively constructed new understandings when reflecting on understandings which appeared to be in conflictwith one another. This observed phenomenon is a timely reminder that the methodology itself is also providing students with an experience which is resulting in knowledge construction. 4.5.3.3 Kathy Kathy was considered by her classroom teacher to be a determined, hard working, capable student. Being an Asian immigrant, English was her second language. However, she came from a home background where education was very highly valued and excellent parental support was always available. Quiet by nature, Kathy appeared to be a deep thinker, and easily mastered new school work. Excellent progress was consistently made in all subject areas. Her teacher asserted that she demonstrated excellent personal work and study habits, with all work handed in on time and meticulously done. Furthermore, Kathy was the type of student who would be considered for placing in a multi-age teaching environment because of her excellent independent work habits. Her teacher reported that Kathy looked forward to science teaching segments, usually being quickly able to grasp the concept or process skill being presented. Kathy was selected as a case study on the basis that her map included many detailed understandings of the topic of magnetism, and it was ranked as being one of the most conceptually rich maps when compared to other students' maps. Because of this richness, it was felt that it would be worthwhile probing Kathy's understanding and the experiences which she believed helped her construct her knowledge. Figures 4.3a and 4.3b detail Kathy's hand-drawn concept map and her concept map redrawn by the researcher. Kathy understood that magnets have two poles - North and South; like poles repel and unlike poles attract; hacksaw blades can be magnetised; metal can be attracted to magnets; electricity can be used to magnetise an electromagnet; and electromagnets can be powered by batteries. 164 ,...... -_._---... , ) "( (X\\vrld ,/ ...... _- \ N'kic.\ " " ) ...... --- - -� ,/ Figure 4.3a. Kathy's hand-drawn concept map of her understandings of magnetism. �______North and South att:rad______-,{ North is one of the poles of a magnet poles of a magnet A fridge is a useful �"place to put magn ::-.:: Metal can be attracted _o---� Electromagnets can b g ts I by magnots powered by batterie! ::�=a:::� ;: tridgo By using electricity, you .__-"""-- can magnetise an _---,"""y_ ...... electromagnet c=:)Fridge �Metal Figure 4.3b. Kathy's concept map redrawn by the researcher. 165 Similar to other case study students involved in the pilot study, Kathy was interviewed for about 30 minutes, and her interview transcript was analysed to determine her understandings of magnetism and her views about the origins of her knowledge. As with Nevill's and Devin's understandings, it was clear that Kathy's understandings of the topic were much more detailed than expressed in the concept map which she constructed. Table 4.3 represents her CPI and RLE. Table 4.3 Concept Profile Inventory &RelatedLea rning Experience fo r Kathy Fundamental category Student concept (CPI) Related learning experience (RLE) Properties of Magnets Magnets have a 'North' and a 'South' Classroom theory lesson pole Magnets attract and repel one another Classroom theory lesson Like poles repel and unlike poles Classroom theory lesson attract Magnets are attracted to certain types Home-based experiment of metals Magnets have magnetic fields Classroom theory lesson Applications of Magnets Electromagnet is a type of magnet Classroom theory lesson Magnets are used on fridges Personal observation Electromagnets are made with a bolt Class experiment I Mr wrapped with wire which is connected Wallace to electricity An electromagnet's strength is Class experiment proportional to the number of turns of copper wire about the bolt Magnetic Phenomena Breaking a magnet in half yields two Classroom theory lesson magnets Metal can be magnetised by stroking it Classroom theory lesson with a magnet Bashing a magnet against a hard Class experiment! surface decreases its magnetic strength Home-based experiment!observation Theory of Magnetism Metal is magnetised by aligning "bits Classroom theory lesson inside" - Domain theory Generators have something to do with ? magnets Alternative Frameworks Magnets only have fields in the ? Possibly class experiment presence of other magnets Earth's magnetic field keeps things ? from flyingoff the Earth. 166 Much of Kathy's articulated understandings of the nature and properties of magnets appeared to have come from classroom-based experimentation and theory lessons. It was also apparent from the analysis of Kathy's interview transcript that, like other case study students in the pilot study, she has been able to contextualise and makemeaning of these classroom-based experiences in the light of her prior experiences. The following excerpt details a classroom-based experiment in which the teacher demonstrated how a hacksaw blade can be magnetised and demagnetised. Kathy was able to identifywith the process by which her teacher demagnetised the blade by dropping it on the ground, and her own experiences with fridge magnets becoming demagnetised in a similar ways. D Okay, good. Let's have a look here, "hacksaw blade," tell me about the experiment that Mr. Wallace did with that. What did he do? K Well he asked us to bring an old hacksaw blade in if anyone had them, the small ones, and he pinned it up to the board up there, and he got a normal permanent magnet, and stroked it down I think it was about twenty times, in one way, because if you put it the other way, the bits inside the magnet, well the bits inside won't align themselves in one way. So he had to stroke them all in one way and then, it could pick about ten paperclips up. D Really? And did he do anything else after that? K And then he broke it in half, and the magnetism was split into two, and then you pick up fivepaper clips on each side. Then he came outside and dropped it on the ground, so the magnetism would be lost and then he started the whole thing again. D Oh, he dropped it on the ground so it would be lost. So if you drop a magnet...? K Well, for a normal fridge magnet, or what I believe is that if you, say it dropped on the ground once, it would lose a bit of its magnetism, and if you dropped it too many times, it won't stick on a fridge. D So ...why is that? K Well ...I'm not quite sure about that, but, like that's happened to me before, because like on the fridge, most of the things fall down when people walk past, especially if there's notes, so every time they've fallen down I try to put them back up and they won't stay, because they've dropped down too many times or, something like that. D So if the magnet is dropped on the floor too many times so it's not a good magnet anymore? Is that how it works? K Well .. .it's, hard to explain really, it loses its magnetism inside it, not sure why, not sure how either. It is not known whether it was Kathy's past experiences with fridge magnets becoming demagnetised which helped her make connections and form deeper understanding of the classroom-based experiments, or whether the circumstances 167 were the reverse. However, Kathy's understanding had been in some way further developed by seeing one experience in terms of another, a process which is consistent with contemporary theories of knowledge construction. In a number of cases, students under investigation had described instances where they had reported thinking about ideas which they believed to be appropriately belonging to the domain of magnetism, but had decided not to include the idea on their maps because they could not think how to draw links to those ideas. The following quote from Kathy exemplifiesthis type of situation. Here the researcher discusses with Kathy her understandings of generators, and probes why she did not include the notions discussed into her concept map. D Have you ever heard anything about, urn, generators before? K Yes. D Tell me about generators. K They're ... well I know what they are but I can't really explain them. D Well just tell me what you know. K Well there's a generator that has two wheels, and it's got a magnet like near the wheel, and then when, every time you turn it, I think it's one revolution or something like that, can't exactly remember, and when you turnit, it goes through this, through the magnet field, and through the circuit and makes a light bulb go on, so you know that it's working, things like that. But I don't really know a lot about it. D When you were doing the map, the word "generator" or the term "generator" didn't come up in your mind though? K It did, but I wasn't really sure to put it down or not because, I couldn't really think of anything to hook it up to or anything. D Okay, okay. But you think that a generator would come under this topic of magnetism somehow or other? K Yes. D But you weren't to sure how to link it? K No. As it was with Nevill and Devin, it is evident that Kathy's concept map does not fullyrepresent the extent of her real understanding of the topic of magnetism. Perhaps for reasons of not wanting to be wrong, or perhaps the sheer difficultyof confronting one's own uncertain understandings, students appear to withhold the full extent of their understandings of magnetism when completing their concept maps. However, the combination of the concept map and interview methods again proved 168 to be a powerful investigative strategy. For example, students' engagement in the construction of their concept maps which required them to be highly reflective of their own knowledge and understanding was important. To this end, these high levels of metacognition made the interview process a highly productive one because it allowed students to articulate their own knowledge and understandings. Among the demonstrations and experiments which Kathy's teacher performed in the classroom was an exercise where students could map the field patterns associated with bar magnets. This classic physics activity involves placing a sheet of paper over two bar magnets and sprinkling iron filings over the top to show the pattern of the field. The intended outcomes of the demonstration anticipate that students would develop understandings that magnets have associated magnetic fields and that these fieldshave a specificpattern. Kathy was probed by the researcher about her understandings of the magnets and magnetic fields during the course of the interview. The following excerpt reveals that the field-mapping experience appears also to have had some unintended outcomes. Specifically, Kathy appears to have developed an alternative understanding that tentatively caused her to think that magnetic fields may only be derived when two magnets are close to each other. D That's alright, that's good, okay ...when we talked about generator, you mentioned the word "field." What is that, "field?" K Well in magnetism, if you put two magnets together, say about five centimetres apartther e's a magnetic fieldin between, that's what makes them attract to each other. D Okay. So it's only when the magnets are close together you get a field? K Well .. .it's, like with the electromagnet, when it, when the electromagnet is operating you also have the magnetic field around, the end of it, or around the side. D But does a regular old magnet have field, or is it only when it is near another magnet? K Well I'm not positive, but I think it's only when it's near another magnet. This unintended effect is somewhat sobering in that it demonstrated that, despite the teacher's efforts to prepare and facilitate an experience designed to develop further student knowledge in ways consistent with the canons of science, unintended knowledge construction is also a possibility. 169 In considering the data and methods used to reveal and interpret Kathy's knowledge, several conclusions may be drawn. First, in similar fashion to other case study students' understandings, Kathy's understandings of the topic of magnetism were drawn primarily from her classroom experiences, but not to the exclusion of out-of-school experiences. Second, Kathy's concept map did not adequately reflect the knowledge and understanding she possessed about the topic of magnetism. Furthermore, although she did have additional detailed understandings, she was not ultimately able to incorporate those understandings in a concept map form. This confirms that a combination of concept mapping and probing interview is a powerful method for investigating conceptual understanding. Third, Kathy appears to have further constructed her knowledge of the processes by which magnets become demagnetised in the light of existing or past experiences, which appears consistent with contemporary theories of constructivism. Finally, despite the efforts of a teacher to facilitate learning experiences in ways which are entirely consistent with the canons of science, and indeed designed to help students construct new understandings which are scientifically acceptable, unintended knowledge construction may still result. 4.3.6 Outcomes of Stage Two The following discussion presents a summary of the findings of the pilot study exemplifiedby the cases of Nevill, Devin, and Kathy. A description of the outcomes of Stage Two of the study is provided together with reflectionsby the researcher. 4.3.6.1 Effectiveness of the methods Generally speaking, it was found that most students who participated in the pilot study were able to generate meaningful, and occasionally elegant, concept maps afterbrief instruction. However, in a small number of cases, students' graphical and spatial representation ability were more limited then others, and as such their concept maps were comparatively poor with respect to most other students' maps. 170 Upon reflection, it was felt that the 20 minutes instruction followed by a practice session of 40 minutes appeared to be sufficient formost students to gain basic competency to generate concept maps. However, it is clear that student-generated concept maps alone were not necessarily a good indicator of a student's knowledge of a given topic. That is, a poorly constructed map or one which is conceptually impoverished, was not necessarily an indicator of low levels of knowledge or poor understanding of a given domain which was the subject of the map. This was particularly well illustrated by the case study of Devin, who knew and understood considerably more than he was able to represent in his concept map. From the case studies presented previously, it can be conjectured that there were a number of reasons why a concept map representation of a student's knowledge was deficient compared to what was actually understood by the student. First, students' literacy skills may be poor and hence some may find the technique of concept mapping a more difficultmethod to represent their understandings compared with other methods such as verbal communication in semi-structured interview situation. Second, students may be unwilling to risk fully articulating understandings of which they are not entirely certain, for fear of being incorrect about their assertions in concept map form. Third, students may findit difficultto confront fully their tentative understandings, or find it difficult to decide how their concepts relate to other concepts in the domain, and thus consciously neglect to express them in concept map form. Finally, in the absence of sufficientcon text about a given topic domain, students may not be able to retrieve the entirety of their understanding without additional stimulus to help them recall their past experiences. Notwithstanding these aforementioned limitations of the student-generated concept maps, used in isolation they do provide some affirming attributes with reference to the nature of knowledge and knowledge construction. First, the maps provide strong evidence that students' knowledge is indeed structured. Furthermore, they demonstrate that students' knowledge elements do not exist in isolation but rather are interconnected with one another. Second, they are a reaffirming data set, 171 insofar as the interview data set confirm and elaborate further students' knowledge and understanding. Finally, they provide a powerful and effective stimulus in two ways; 1) they allow students to reflectmetacognitively on their own knowledge and understandings which makes the interview process one which is both fruitful and productive in revealing and interpreting students' knowledge, 2) the use of the student's concept map as a reference in the context of the interview provides a powerful and effective stimulus to direct and sustain a conversation about his/her own knowledge and understandings. The strength of the concept mapping technique and the limitations of considering concept maps in isolation to other data sets, underscores the importance of and need for using a multi-method approach. To this end, the semi-structured interview technique appears to be both a powerful and fruitful investigative tool when used in conjunction with the student generated concept map. The maps provide both an opportunity for metacognition and a context with which to begin to explore student understandings further, and in the process of exploration, reveal additional understandings not evident in the student's maps. Once these additional understandings are revealed, these too can be further explored in order to ascertain more fully the extent and interconnectedness of a student's knowledge of a given domain. The semi-structured interview protocol used in the pilot study described in Table 3.3, seemed to be quite adequate in helping provide a framework in which the students could readily discuss their understandings. The various phases of the interview, including rapport building, open-ended discourse, analysis of student generated concept map, specific discourse, and summation, all seemed to support the process adequately. However, a number of specific interview questions such as "I notice that this term has a lot of links in your mind map; Could you explain why you drew it like this?" and "I notice that this term has very few links in your mind map; Could you explain why you drew it like this?" did not seem to be particularly 172 productive. For example, the following excepts from Devin and Kathy's transcripts show that this line of questioning seemed unproductive. D What about the term "electromagnet;" have you ever heard of that? I notice that you put it up here but you've got no links to it. De Yeahurn, anelectromagnet is used in wreckers yards and it's like when electricity is turned... with, urn, copper wire is turned into a magnet with electricity. D I see your term "magnet" has a lot of links coming off it - is there any reason for that? K ... No ... D Okay .. . Most students seemed not to be able to supply answers to these types of questions. To this end, these questions were removed from the semi-structured interview protocol in the main study. The scheduling protocol described in Table 3.1 seems entirely appropriate in terms of the allocated times for completing the various activities of the pilot study, including: concept mapping training, student generation of concept maps, probing interview with students, transcription and analysis of student interviews, and generation of CPI and RLE. Therefore, the main structure of the scheduling protocol was retained for the main study. In the process of probing students' understandings, it was evident that the origins of their understandings were derived from a variety of related prior experiences, including: classroom-based theory lessons; classroom-based practical experiments; school science projects; television programs viewed in students' discretionary time as well as class time; books read in discretionary time, as well as school time; home-based experiments; and observations of others using magnets. This supports the theoretical underpinnings that prior experience is a crucial influence on knowledge construction, as discussed in Section 2.4, and of the importance of using the RLE in the main study, as discussed in Section 3.9.2.2. It also confirmed the power of the combined methods to simulate students to recall and articulate the experiences by which they became cognisant of their knowledge. 173 However, as demonstrated by the case studies, not every concept a student held could be traced to an identifiable past experience or episode. It can be seen from the pilot study outcomes, representing student knowledge in the form of CPI and RLE is somewhat limited, in that such representations do not adequately capture the interconnected nature of the individual's knowledge structures. The interconnected nature of a students' knowledge could be better represented by using the CPI, RLE, and students' interviews as means of reconstructing students' original concept maps embellished with understandings and links which the researcher interprets the student to possess. Researcher Generated Concept Maps (RGCM) (Refer to Section 3.9.2.3) provide a means by which the interconnected nature of students' knowledge might be represented. A further deficiency of the CPI and RLE seems to lie in their overall size and complexity. In part, this complexity lies with keeping track of the data in the students' transcripts, and matching it with the vast array of concepts which students possess. Numbering and ordering the concepts in the CPI to reduce some of this complexity was incorporated into the procedures for the main study. 4. 3.6.2 Student concept mapping abilities Itbecame evident that: 1) Students sometimes experienced difficulty labelling the arrows connecting nodes on their concept maps. The major difficulty was in writing full and complete sentences which included both the terms contained within the nodes; 2) Students experienced some difficulties in arranging the nodes within their concept maps in a "logical" hierarchical form. Many students appeared to cluster concepts which they felt had a strong association into discrete sections of the map; 3) Some students used the same concept (node) more than once. This was particularly the case with the terms "North," "South," "Attract," and "Repel."; 4) Students sometimes appeared to confuse the direction of the arrow connecting two nodes. For example, COW <---- breathes out --- CARBON DIOXIDE, which implies that it is the carbon dioxide which breathes out of the cows, while the student in question meant to indicate that it is the cow that breathes out carbon 174 dioxide; and 5) In general, students had greater difficulty maintaining their attention to generating their concept maps in the afternoon session compared with the morning session. All of these findings were taken into account and the concept mapping training protocol (Section 3.6.2.2) in the main study was modifiedto help reduce these generally undesirable outcomes. Specifically, the training program for the main study placed greater emphasis on addressing problematic behaviour such as described in points 1, 2, 3, and 4. This was achieved through stressing the "rules" which might govern a concept mapping exercise and drawing special attention to correct and incorrect aspects of the sample concept maps produced during the training session. The rules which were emphasised included: a concept node cannot be repeated in the map, full sentences must be used to link concepts, the direction of the links should be checked for their intended meaning, and the arrangement of concept nodes should have some logical order (as opposed to a strict hierarchical order as in a Novak-style concept map (Novak & Gowin, 1984)). During the course of the main study, concept mapping exercises were conducted in the morning sessions of the day to overcome problems of student fatigue. 4. 3.6.3 Student knowledge construction In general terms, students were able to articulate how they became cognisant of their knowledge of magnetism and electricity. That is, they were able to cite specific examples of experiences, both in and outside of the classroom, which they believed were pivotal in the development of their understandings of the concepts they were describing. In the first five minutes of the magnetism concept mapping task, a number of students tended to contextualise their knowledge of magnetism to those experiences of the classroom or school rather than their broader knowledge acquired through other life experiences. This was demonstrated by statements of concern by students when they were asked to generate the maps, that is, "I was away for those lessons," and "I missed out on that stuff about magnets." This episode underscored the fact that knowledge is contextual and may be viewed in different ways depending on the 175 context in which is it perceived to be presented. It further suggested that the concept mapping program should be modified in such a way as to encourage students to think more widely about their understandings beyond that of their classroom-based experiences. All students held alternative frameworks relating to the topics of magnetism and electricity, despite the fact that many of these understandings were not articulated on students' concept maps. Some commonly held misconceptions were that the Earth's spin was a result of the Earth's magnetic field and that magnetic fields did not exist in isolation, i.e., it takes two magnets to make a magnetic field. 4.4 Summary Stage One resulted in four key principles for the development of educationally effective PV As. These principles provide a framework within which to develop the PV As for use in the main study - Stage Three. The pilot study conducted in Stage Two provided valuable feedback concerning the methods used to collect data and examine students' construction of knowledge. Specifically, information and insight were gained about the strengths and weaknesses of the data collection protocols and methods of analysis. This information was used to improve the data gathering and analysis procedures to be used in the main study. Chapters Five and Six comprise a report of the data collection, analysis, and interpretation in relation to Stage Three of this research, the Main Study. 176 Chapter Five Overview, Analysis, and Discussion of Group Data 5.1 Introduction This chapter presents a general overview, analysis, and discussion of the twelve selected students' knowledge and understandings which were probed and interpreted by the researcher over the course of Stage Three of the study. The data described within this chapter consist primarily of concepts which were, in the view of the researcher, possessed by students prior to visiting the Sciencentre (Phase A), and the changes in their concepts identifiedafter visiting the Sciencentre (Phase B) and afterparticipation in classroom-based post-visit activities (PVAs) (Phase C). These data are represented in concept profileinventories (CPIs). In addition, identifiedknowledge transformation processes interpreted by the researcher across the phases of the study are also reported and discussed. This chapter is structured in a way that satisfiesprimarily Research Objective (A), defined in Section 3.2, through the description and interpretation of data, but also it addresses, in part, Research Objective (B), in so far as identifying the transformation processes of students' learning. It is recognised that identifying individual concepts and categorising them into CPIs has both strengths and weaknesses. The primary strength of this approach lies in being able to identify, on a highly detailed level, the diversity and richness of conceptual ideas students possess and develop across the phases of this stage of the study. The chief deficiency lies in the fact that concepts, disintegrated into individual concepts, lose part of their meaning, in that the connections between concepts and the context in which they are embedded are lost. This partial "loss" of information 177 through the representation of the synthesised data sets of the CPls represented in this Chapter is "recovered" and addressed in Chapter Six, where students' changing knowledge and understandings are treated in an integrated and holistic way. To this end, Research Objective (B) is more fully and effectively satisfiedthrough the discussion and analysis provided in the framework of Chapter Six, which considers five student case studies and their knowledge transformations as unified stories. 5.2 Representing the Data The data sets, including the student-generated concept maps and semi-structured interviews, were analysed in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 3.9. The set of concepts which students possessed was categorised into four fundamental categories, namely, 1) Properties of magnets, 2) Earth's magnetic field, compasses, and application of magnets, 3) Properties of electricity, and 4) Types of electricity, electricity production, and application of electricity. These categories were not preordained by the researcher, but rather, emerged as appropriate categorising descriptors when the data sets were considered in their entirety. All concept groupings that the researcher identified and believed students possessed, and which were relevant to the domains of electricity and magnetism, were sorted into these fundamental categories in the form of Concept Profile Inventories (CPls). It was recognised that not every semi-relevant associated concept students possessed was identified and listed in the CPl. To this end, the CPls are recognised as being highly extensive and representative of students' knowledge, but not exhaustive. Within each fundamental category (1 through 4) in each phase, concepts which were identified as being alternative with respect to the accepted scientificview were further sorted into an additional sub-category. The concept identification and categorisation process was repeated independently during the course of the data analysis for Phases Two and Three of the study. Thus, the lists of concepts portrayed in the CPls of Phases A, B, and C 178 were unique to those phases, although clear similarities sometimes exist between the concept categories described in each phase. To this end, the concepts expressed in each phase differ from each other, and the numbering system pertaining to the concepts of one phase is in no way related to the numbering system of other phases. The processes of identification and categorisation for each phase were necessary, since students contextualised and expressed their knowledge and understandings differently in each phase in ways corresponding to their most recent experiences. For example, students frequently expressed concepts in Phase (B) in terms of their Sciencentre experiences. Furthermore, it was the view of the researcher that simply transferring the concept categories from earlier phases would degrade the quality of meanings of concepts portrayed in different phases. Only concepts which were not identifiedin previous phases of the study are detailed in the CPIs of Phases B and C. These include 1) new concepts not identifiedin previous phases and 2) concepts which were similar to ones identified in earlier phases but that had differed in some way. Concepts in each phase and fundamental category were compared among the twelve students, and commonality between concepts was sorted and later grouped. It was found that many students had similar concepts to each other's, and these were subsumed into concept categories. Concepts were also interpreted and distinguished by the researcher in terms of being declarative, procedural, or contextual in nature (See Section 2.4.1.1), such that an additional perspective of students' knowledge and understandings could be depicted. Sections 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5 considers the students' concepts in terms of 1) phase of the study, 2) fundamental categories within an overall concept profileinventory, and 3) individual concepts themselves. Sections 5.3 and 5.4 also identify and consider the forms of knowledge transformation which were seen across the phases of the study, by linking back and connecting with concepts identified in previous phases of the study. 179 Tables in each section describe the particular concepts students (A01 through A12) possessed, the total number of students interpreted as holding the given concepts is reported in the total column (Tot), and the knowledge type, interpreted by the researcher, for each concept is contained in the knowledge (Kn.)column - Declarative (D), Procedural (P), and Contextual (C). The interpretation of each concept as being categoried as declarative, procedural, or contextual was acheived using Tennyson's (1992) descriptions of the knowledge types discussed in Section 2.4.1.1. In cases where concepts were held by more than one student, supporting quotes from their interview transcripts or directly from their self-generated concept maps are included to exemplify and provide further meaning of that concept. The following pseudonyms were used to describe the 12 case studies: Alice (01); Hazel (02); Courtney (03); Sam (04); Jenny (05); Susan (06); AlIen (07); Heidi (08); Andrew (09); Greg (10); Josie (11); and Roger (12). 5.3 Pre-Visit Phase (Phase A) 5.3.1 Properties of magnets: Phase A Table 5.1 details the overall concept profileinventory for students' (A01 through A12) initial understanding of the properties of magnets. Students held a large number and a rich diversity of ideas about magnets. The most commonly held concepts included: 1.1A Magnets can attract, 1.2A Magnets can repel, 1.3A Magnets can attract certain types of metal, 1.4A Opposite polarities of magnets attract each other and like polarities repel, 1.5A Magnets are made of metal, 1.6A Magnets stick to refrigerators, 1.7 A Magnets have a North and South pole, 1.8A Magnets create/use magnetism, 1.9A Horseshoe and/or 'Bar' are types of magnets, 1. lOA Metal can be magnetised by stroking it with another magnet. 180 All students were of the view that magnets had the property of being able to attract (l.IA), a subset of these specifically mentioned that magnets stick to refrigerators (1.6A). Interestingly, not all students (25%) were of the view that magnets also had the properties of being able to repel other magnets (1.2A). Three-quarters of the students were of the opinion that magnets could universally attract certain types of metals (l.3A). More than half of the students held conceptions relating to the bi-polar nature of magnets, and that like poles repelled each other and unlike poles attracted one another (1.4A). However, half of these students (3 of the 12) held the concept that the poles of a magnet were denoted by the descriptors "positive end" and "negative end" (1.20A). A third of students stated that magnets were made of metal (1.5A). A quarter of the students held the concepts: magnets create and/or use magnetism (1.8A); "Horseshoe" and/or "Bar" are types of magnets (1.9A); metal could be magnetised by stroking it with another magnet (1. lOA); and an electromagnet is a type of magnet (1. llA). Only one student, Roger (A12), appeared to have understandings that magnets could create electricity. 181 Table 5.1 Concept Profile Inventory - Students ' Pre-visit Understanding of the Properties of Fundamental Category: 1.0A Properties of Magnets 1.1 A Magnets can attract 1.2A Magnets can repel 1.3A Magnets can attract certain types of metal 1.4A Opposite polarities of magnets attract each other and like polarities repel 1.SA Magnets are made of metal 1.6A Magnets stick to refrigerators 1.7A Magnets have a North and South pole 1.8A Magnets create/use magnetism 1.9A Horseshoe and/or 'Bar' are types of magnets 1.10A Metal can be magnetised by stroking it with another magnet 1.11A An "electromagnet' is a type of magnet 1.12A Magnets have a field 1.13A Big magnets are stronger than small magnets 1.14A Magnetism and electricity are somehow related 1.1SA Magnetism is like electricity but brings things near instead of making work 1.16A Magnets are not attracted to people 1 .17A Magnets use/produce power 1.18A Magnets attract metal objects because of magnetism 1 .19A Magnets can create electricity Alternative views 1.20A Magnets have positive and negative ends 1.20A Electricity may be involved in making magnet stick to the refrigerator 1.21A Magnetism and electricity are somehow related through heat 1.22A A positive and negative piece of metal are required to make a magnet. 1.23A Magnetism is a force that is positive and negative 1.24A Thermometers use magnets to measure temperature 1.2SA Lightning is in magnets 1.26A Lightning is in magnetism 1.27A Light switches are in magnetism 1.28A Magnets are attracted to Aluminium The following are typical examples of statements made by students which illustrate their understanding of the general concepts. 1.1A Magnets can attract - 12 Magnets attract other magnets andmeta ls. - A03 182 1.2A Magnets can repel - 9 North and South, and South can join on to another magnet if it is a North one and resist the South side of a magnet. - A04 Both a North and North [pole of a magnet] repel each other. - A06 Magnets push away. - A07 1.3A Magnets can attract certain types of metal - 9 Magnets attract just certain types of metal. - A03 Magnets attract only some metals. - A04 A magnet is something that attracts to metal or a special type of metal through magnetism. - AlO 1.4A Opposite polarities of magnets attract each other and like polarities repel - 7 There are two parts of them [magnets] - North and South, and South can join onto another magnet if it is a North one. - A04 The South end [of a magnet] tries and goes onto the North end, and the North end goes - onto the South. - A07 Positive and positive [ends of magnets] repel as well as negative and negative ... Positive and negative repel. - A09 1.SA Magnets are made of metal - S Magnets are made of certain types of metal. - A02 1.6A Magnets stick to refrigerators - S Magnets stick to refrigerators. - A06 1.7A Magnets have a North and South pole - 4 Magnets have two sides - North and South. - Al2 1.SA Magnets create/use magnetism - 3 Magnets need - well magnets need magnetism to make them. - A02 1.9A "Horseshoe" and/or "Bar" are types of magnets - 3 Magnets can be in two forms - a horse shoe that looks like a horse shoe or a bar magnet. -A12 1.10A Metal can be magnetised by stroking it with another magnet - 3 You can use magnets to magnetise things ... what you do is run it [the magnet] along the side that has the charge that you want to give it... - A09 1.HA An "electromagnet" is a type of magnet - 3 Magnets can be either electromagnets of just normal magnets. - Al2 1.12A Magnets have a field - 2 Compasses point in the direction of a magnet's field - A06 Alternative views 1.20A Magnets have positive and negative ends - 3 [Magnets] have two ends- I think positive and negative. - A03 A magnet is an object that has two opposite charges - a positive and negative charge. - A09 183 5.3.2 Earth's magnetic field, compasses, and applications of magnets: Phase A Table 5.2 contains the overall concept profile inventory for students' initial understanding of Earth's magnetic field, compasses, and applications of magnets. Students also appeared to have a wide diversity of knowledge and understandings relating to the domain of this fundamental category. Among the most commonly held concepts were: 2.1A Compasses point to the North pole of the Earth / Point North and/or South, 2.2A Earth has a magnetic field, 2.3A Magnets are used in motors, 2.4A Compasses are attracted to magnetic fields/ affected by magnets, 2.5A Magnets (electromagnets) are used in rubbish dumps, 2.6A A simple compass can be made by magnetising a pin in a cork and placing it in a cup of water, 2.7A Compass needles are magnetised, 2.8A Compass needles point north because they are magnetic More than half of the students (seven of the twelve) held the concept that compasses pointed toward the North or South pole of the Earth (2.1A). Approximately half of these students (three of the twelve) were of the view that compasses were affected by, or attracted to, magnetic fields (2.4A), while a third of all students understood that the Earth itself has a magnetic field surrounding it (2.2A). A quarter of the students understood that magnets are in some way used in electric motors (2.3A). Two students described the application of magnets in terms of their use in rubbish tips (dumps) to separate metal from non-metal materials or to move metallic material from place to place (2.5A). Two additional students detailed their procedural knowledge of the process by which a piece of metal could be magnetised in order to produce a crude compass (2.6A). Three students possessed partly scientificallyacceptable conceptions relating to the existence of a large magnet at the poles of the Earth which was responsible for the operative properties of compasses (2.16A). 184 Table 5.2 Concept Profile Inventory - Students ' Pre-Visit Understandings of Earth 's Magnetic Field, Compasses, and Applications of Magnets 2.2A Earth has a magnetic field 2.3A Magnets are used in motors 2.4A Compasses are attracted to magnetic fields / affected by magnets 2.SA Magnets (electromagnets) are used in rubbish dumps 2.6A A simple compass can be made by magnetising a pin in a cork and placing it in a cup of water 2.7A Compass needles are magnetised 2.BA Compass needles point North because they are magnetic 2.9A Magnets are used in locks and latches 2.10A Magnets are used in scientific experiments 2.1 1 A Compass needles are made of steel 2.12A Magnets are used in factories 2.13A Earth has a North and South magnetic pole 2.14A Electromagnets are made by passing electricity through a coil of copper wire 2.1SA Electromagnets in motors switch their polarity to keep a motor spinning Alternative Views 2.16A The North pole of the Earth has a magnet in it 2.17 A Earth's magnetic field is responsible for the observed effects of gravity 2.1BA Lightning is attracted to the Earth due to magnetic forces 2.19A Compasses use the sun to indicate direction The following are typical examples of statements made by students that illustrate their understanding of the general concepts. 2.1A Compasses point to the North Pole of the Earth I Point North and/or South - 7 The needle of a compass points towards the Earth's North pole. AOI [Compasses] point toward the North. - A04 2.2A Earth has a magnetic field - 5 The Earth has a magnetic field and North and South poles up the top and down the bottom.- Al2 2.3A Magnets are used in motors - 3 I think that they [magnets] might be used in motors. - A02 To have an electric motor you have to have magnetism to pull it around. - A08 Electric motors ... they use magnets and they switch - with the electromagnet they switch the charge to keep the thing moving. - A09 185 2.4A Compasses are attracted to magnetic fields I affected by magnets - 3 [If you bring a magnet near a compass] it will spin around. - A02 2.SA Magnets (electromagnets) are used in rubbish dumps - 2 They use electromagnets in dumps to sort out the metal from the plastic. - A09 2.6A A simple compass can be made by magnetizing a pin in a cork and placing it in a cup of water - 2 Yeah,a compass is just a magnet... if you get a bowl of water and a cork and then magnetise a pin and you put it in a cork and that will spin towards North and towards the North pole. - A12 I was reading this book about magnetism and electricity we had and ... I saw that they had a little cork with a needle, and my mum showed me how to do it.. She cut the cork and showed me how to magnetise the needle and stuff, and you put it in the cup and you point [North]. - A09 2.7A Compasses needles are magnetised - 2 Compass needles are magnetised pieces of metal. - A12 2.8A Compass needles point North because they are magnetic - 2 A compass is a piece of metal which is magnetised so it points to the magnetic North pole of the Earth so you can find your way around. - A09 Alternative Views 2.16A The North pole of the Earth has a magnet in it - 3 The North pole [of the Earth] has a magnet in it. - All 5.3.3 Properties of electricity: Phase A Table 5.3 details the overall concept profile inventory for students' initial understanding of the properties of electricity. Commonly identifiedcon cepts among students included: 3.1A Electricity makes things work! Powers electrical appliances and lights, 3.2A Electricity flows through wires, 3.3A Electricity can create magnetism, 3.4A Metals and/orwater are conductors of electricity, 3.5A Wood and/orpl astic are insulators of electricity, 3.6A Electricity can kill you I Electrocute you, 3.7A Volts and/or amps and/or watts are a measure of electricity. Among the diversity of concepts relating to the properties of electricity, two were prevalent and widely held by students, specifically, electricity's ability to power electrical appliances and make things work (3.1A) , and electricity's property of flowing through wires (3.2A). Each of these concepts was held by at least ten of the twelve students. The concept of "flow" of electricity was not restricted to the wires only. Two 186 students were able to describe the properties of electricity-conducting mediums in terms of their ability to allow electricity to pass through them. These two also described the flow of electricity in terms of "an electron flow" (3.8A), suggesting an advanced understanding and contextual knowledge of the topic for students at this grade leveL Notwithstanding the fact that only two students described this property, half of the students could name materials which were examples of either conductors or insulators (3.4A and 3.5A), suggesting that the concept may be held more widely than just the two students who described the flowconcept. Five of the students stated that electricity has the ability to kill people through electrocution (3.6A), while a third possessed the concept that electricity had the ability to give people an electric shock (3.9A). Half of the students described a property of electricity in terms of its ability to produce magnetic effects in the context of describing an electromagnet (3.3A). Five students described electricity as being measured in volts and/or amps and/or watts (3.7A), and two students were of the view that electricity could start fires (3.l lA). 187 Table 5.3 Concept Profile Inventory - Students ' Pre-Visit understandings of Properties of 3.1 3.3A Electricity can create magnetism 3.4A Metals and/or water are conductors of electricity 3.5A Wood and/or plastic are insulators of electricity 3.6A Electricity can kill you / Electrocute you 3.7A Volts and/or amps and/or watts are a measure of electricity 3.8A Electrons move through wires / travels in a current 3.9A Electricity can give you an electric shock 3.10A Conductors allow electricity to pass through them 3.1 1 A Electricity can start fires 3.12A Insulators do not allow electricity to pass through them 3.13A Metal attracts lightning 3.14A Metal becomes hot when conducting electricity 3.15A Electricity produces sparks 3.16A Electricity takes the path of least resistance 3.17A Electricity is energy 3.18A Electricity has positive and negative charge 3.19A Electrons are microscopiC 3.20A Human bodies contain millions of electrons 3.21 A Human body contains electricity 3.22A Electricity will only flow through a complete circuit 3.23A Electricity connects things like lights and phones Alternative views 3.24A Electricity is in telephone poles 3.25A Electricity has positive and negative forces which are the same as magnetic positive and negative forces 3.26A Lightning comes from the sky and goes into batteries 3.27A Electricity needs/uses forces The following are typical examples of statements made by students that illustrate their understanding of the general concepts. 3.1A Electricity makes things work!Powers electrical appliances and lights - 10 Electricity makes things work. - AOl It [electricity] makes light bulbs work and refrigerators kept cold. - A06 Electricity is an object which makesappliances and other things go. - A07 3.2A Electricity flows through wires - 10 Electricity travels through power lines. - A04 188 Electricity goes through power lines to make power work in the house. - A05 Yeah,if urn,well, it [electricity] goes through, urn,well it goes through wires but it like if you touched or something, like if it's a conductor for electricity it goes through that as well. - A08 3.3A Electricity can create magnetism - 6 Electricity can be used to make magnetism with the electromagnet. - A09 An electromagnet I think uses power from an electrical generator that flows through and magnetises it. - A12 I saw in a book. .. if you put in a battery and then put in like something metal on the end of it and you joined up with things, it can suck up some metal - [it turnsinto a magnet]. - A04 3.4A Metals and/or water are conductors of electricity - 6 Electricity goes through wires but if you touched or something, like if it is a conductor for electricityit goes through that as well. Electricity can go through metals for example, electricity can go through them. - A08 Conductor - that's metal or an object that lets electricitypass through it. - A09 3.5A Wood and/or plastic are insulators of electricity - 6 Wood isn't a conductor, so you can touch things [with wood] that are electrical and not get electrocuted. - A08 Insulators are such things like plastic, porcelain - things like clay. - A09 3.6A Electricity can kill you I Electrocute you - 5 Electricity can sometimes killyou if you get electrocuted by it through volts. - A06 If there's electricity coming from storms and things, and you get struck, you can kill yourself. - A02 3.7A Volts and/or amps and/or watts are a measure of electricity - 5 Voltage ... measure how strong electricity is. - A02 Electricity is measured in Volts. - A03 Electricity is measured in Amps. - A09 Electricity is measured in Watts. - A09 3.8A Electrons move through wires I travels in a current - 2 [Electricity] it's a charge or current that moves through a conductor which is metal most of the time. It moves by electrons passing on the charge. I think the electrons move when the electricity's in it - in the wire, it sort of gets the electrons to move round a bit and they sort of bump each other and starts off like a chain reaction along the wire. - A09 3.9A Electricity can give you an electric shock - 2 You can get an electric shock - electric fences keeps horses from running away. You can get electric shock - sticking your finger in [a power outlet]. - A02 3.10A Conductors allow electricity to pass through them - 2 Electricity goes through wires but if you touched or something, like if it is a conductor for electricity it goes through that as well. Electricity can go through metals, for example, electricity can go through them. - A08 [Electricity] it's a charge or current that moves through a conductor which is metal most of the time. It moves by electrons passing on the charge. - A09 3.11A Electricity can start fires- 2 Electricity starts fires. - A02 Electricity can produce fire. - A03 189 3.12A Insulators do not allow electricity to pass through them - 2 Conductor - that's metal or an object that lets electricity pass through it. They're called insulators, such things like plastic, urn,plastic .....um, porcelain, clay, wood. - A09 5.3.4 Types of electricity, electricity production, and applications of electricity: Phase A Table 5,4 details the overall concept profile inventory for students' initial understanding of the types of electricity, electricity production, and application of electricity. The most frequently identified concepts in the fundamental category included: 4.1A Lightning is a form of electricity, 4.2A Static Electricity is a form of electricity, 4.3A Batteries make and/or store electricity, 4,4A Static electricity can be produced by rubbing a balloon with a cloth and/or combing your hair, 4.5A Generators make electricity, and 4.6A Fossil fuels can be burntto produce electricity. All students were of the view that lightning was a form of electricity (4.1A). However, slightly less than half (five students) had the concept that static electricity was a form of electricity (4.2A). Of these five students, four were able to describe a process or an experiential event by which static electricity could be generated, for example, rubbing a balloon with a cloth or combing their hair on a dry day (4,4A). Slightly less than half of the students (five students) described batteries as things which could either store or contain electricity (4.3A), while a quarter recognised that generators were able to produce electricity (4.5A), but were not able to describe their understandings beyond the level of declarative knowledge. One third of the students demonstrated procedural knowledge such as the processes by which fossil fuels could be burnt to produce electrical energy (4.6A), although only one of these students seemed to describe fully the process in terms of the role of steam, turbines, and magnets. Two students described solar power as being a form of electricity (4.24A). However, these views were regarded by the researcher as being alternative, in that these 190 students appeared to have made a direct association between electricity and solar energy, without appreciating the associated energy conversion process. Table 5.4 Concept Profile Inventory - Students ' Pre- Visit Understandings of the Typ es of and Fundamental Category: 4.0A Types of Electricity, Electricity Production, and Applications of Electricity 4.1 A electricity 4.2A Static electricity is a form of electricity 4.3A Batteries make and/or store electricity 4.4A Static electricity can be produced by rubbing a balloon with a cloth and/or combing your hair 4.SA Generators make electricity 4.6A Fossil fuels can be burnt to produce electricity 4.7A Thomas Edison invented the light bulb 4.BA A Dynamo turns turbines to generate electricity 4.9A Lightning is produced when water droplets rub together 4.10A Lightning is a discharge of static electricity from the perspective of a negative charge 4.1 1 A Static electricity is produced by friction 4.12A Batteries are required to make a circuit work 4.13A Batteries are used in science experiments 4.14A Wires are used to build electric circuits 4.1SA Electricity is produced at power stations 4.1 6A Light switches are made of plastic to insulate the electricity 4.17A An electric motor can generate electricity if you spin it in your hand 4.1BA Solar power uses the sun to generate electricity 4.19A Nuclear power uses plutonium to generate electricity 4.20A Hydro power uses water to generate electricity 4.21A Wind power uses fans to generate electricity p 4.22A Wires are in TVs o 4.23A Current is in TVs o Altemative views 4.24A Solar power is a form of electricity o 4.2SA Light switches and lightning connect together o 4.26A Wires are inside batteries o 4.27 A Batteries have cords in them 4.2BA Bolts are in TVs 4.29A Cords are in TVs 4.30A Cords are in telephone poles 4.31A Wires are in telephone poles 4.32A Multimeters measure the charge in yo ur body 4.33A Power produces electricity 191 The following are typical examples of statements made by students that illustrate their understanding of the general concepts. 4.1A Lightning is a form of electricity - 12 Lightning is created by electricity. - A08 Lightning is a [electrical] discharge from a cloud. - A09 Lightning is a form of electricity. - Al2 4.2A Static Electricity is a form of electricity - 5 Static electricity is a kind of electricity. - A08 4.3A Batteries make and/or store electricity - 5 Electricity comes from batteries. - A07 Electricity is stored in batteries. - A09 Batteries contain electricity. - AlO 4.4A Static electricity can be produced by rubbing a balloon with a cloth and/or combing your hair - 4 Friction creates static electricity in your hair, okay, can be made static electricity if it's rubbed againsta balloon. - A08 [Static electricity] - that's when you rub something to your hair or a jumper or something and then like if you did it to your hair, then the hair would stick up. - All Static electricity] - you feel an electrical charge when you comb your hair or take off a jumper and if you do it at night, you can see it spark. - Al2 4.5A Generators make electricity - 4 I remember when we got electricity in our house last year they had a generator. Every time they wanted to get something going, like the lights, they had to go out the back and start it up again. - A02 A generator gives out electricity. - A04 4.6A Fossil fuels can be burnt to produce electricity - 4 Something has to be burnt to make it [electricity] run. - A03 [A power station] burns coal [to make electricity] - AIO 4.7 A Thomas Edison invented the light bulb - 2 Thomas Edison invented the light bulb. - A03 Thomas Edison used electricity to make a light bulb. - Al2 Alternative views 4.24A Solar power is a form of electricity - 2 Solar power can be used instead of electricity. - A03 Solar power is a form of electricity. - A04 192 5.3.5 Discussion: Phase A Summarising the outcomes of Phase A, the pre-visit data sets reveal that students were quite knowledgable about the topics of electricity and magnetism. All students were able to describe a large number and wide diversity of concepts relating to both the topics of magnetism and electricity, and on some occasions, also could describe situations to which their understandings of their properties could be applied. For example, demonstrating procedural knowledge, that is, making a home-made compass (concept 2.6A, Table 5.2) or describing their contextual understandings of the way magnets are used in motors (concept 2.3A, Table 5.2). Table 5.5 shows that at least 260 magnetism and electricity concepts were identified among the twelve students. Most of these concepts were interpreted by the researcher as being declarative in nature, representing 83% of all the identified concepts. Procedural knowledge accounted for 13% of the identifiedcon cepts, while contextual knowledge accounted for only 4%. Table 5.5 Summaryof Student Knowledge Typ es Interpretedfrom Phase A < ------Fundamental Category ------> Total Relative Percent 1.0A 2.0A 3.0A 4.0A Declarative 77 28 69 43 217 83% Knowledge Procedural 7 5 2 19 33 13% Knowledge Contextual 6 2 1 10 4% Knowledge This analysis suggests that students' knowledge bases relating to the topics of electricity and magnetism were largely declarative in nature, and in comparison, only a fraction of this knowledge represented procedural and contextual understandings of the topics of electricity and magnetism. Students referred frequently to related learning experiences (RLE) from both in and outside the classroom which they believed helped them develop their understandings of the topics. For example, students would cite 193 experiential sources such as viewing television programs, reading books, personal observation(s), being informed by sources such as teachers and parents, and personal experimentation at home and in the classroom. The fact that so much of students' knowledge appeared to be declarative in nature was, perhaps in part, confirmed by the fact that students frequently suggested that authoritative sources, such as books, TV programs, teachers, and parents, formulated the origins of their understandings. There appears to be some evidence that procedural and contextual knowledge develop most commonly from personal "hands-on" experiences. For example, Andrew's (A09) procedural understandings of the making of a compass were developed from home based experimentation with his mother's assistance: I was reading this book about magnetism and electricity we had and ... I saw that they had a little cork with a needle, and my mum showed me how to do it.. She cut the cork and showed me how to magnetise the needle and stuff, and you put it in the cup and you point [North]. - A09 His contextual understandings of the mechanical operations of electromagnets were also developed similarly through hands-on experience: I found out about the electric motor because we had slot cars at home and I used to disassemble them. Like Jacob was - my brother - he was - he would pull them apart once they were broken, and I saw - he showed me the electromagnet, and I also saw it in some books in the library here. And that's how I found out. - A09 Discussions of the development of contextual and higher order understandings and the related learning experiences (RLE) which students deemed responsible for those understandings will be presented in Chapter Six. An examination of students' pre-visit concept maps, in addition to students' interview transcripts, suggests that students' knowledge of the topics was well differentiated, that is, the students were able to describe many different aspects of the properties and nature of magnetism and electricity. However, their knowledge, for the most part, seemed to be poorly integrated, i.e., generally speaking, there were few links 194 between students' concepts of electricity and magnetism. As a consequence of this low level of integration, knowledge and understandings of scientific theories and models which could account for the properties of magnets and electricity were largely absent. The outcomes of Phase A indicate that, while half were able to describe the fact that electromagnets used electricity to produce magnetic effects (concept 3.3A, Table 5.3), only one student could describe the fact that magnetism could be used to produce electricity (concept 1. 19A, Table 5.1). Thus, understandings which correctly describe the interrelationships that exist between electricity and magnetism were largely non existent. 5.4 Post-Visit Phase (Phase B) One week after students constructed their initial concept map and participated in probing interviews, all students visited the Sciencentre as described in Chapter Three. Here, students had a free-choice experience where they interacted with the hands-on exhibits and each other. Students were seen to engage with the exhibits individually as well as in social groups, and were frequently seen to return to exhibits with which they had previously interacted, sometimes on two and three occasions. Interactions with exhibits were usually short in duration, typically not more than a minute. However, on occasions when groups were interacting with exhibits and each other, the duration was typically longer. Sciencentre explainers (facilitators) were seen to engage students randomly at the exhibits, and, for the most part, they provided procedural advice or instruction concerning how to operate the exhibit. Following this experience, all students constructed a second concept map detailing their understandings of electricity and magnetism, and the same twelve students were interviewed about their Sciencentre experiences and probed about their knowledge and understandings of magnetism and electricity. 195 All students had experienced a variety of transformations of their knowledge and understandings as a result of their field trip experiences. These included the addition of new concepts not previously detected in Phase A; the progressive differentiation of concepts, including the recontextualisation of ideas previously understood but now described in terms of Sciencentre experiences; the merging and reorganisation of previously non-associated concepts; the retrieval of pre-existing concepts not previously identified in Phase A; an increase in the amount of declarative knowledge and also the development of procedural and contextual knowledge; and, on a grander scale, the development of personal theories which they used to explain domain specific phenomena. All reported concepts listed in the CPIs of Phase B are considered to represent changes or differences in students' knowledge and understandings which have arisen since the interpretation conducted in Phase A. The analysis procedure was conducted in the way described in Section 3.9.2.l. Since the interpretation, identification, and categorisation of concepts were conducted independently in each Phase of Stage Three, the numbering system of concepts in this Phase bears no relationship to that of the concepts arising in other Phases of the study. Analysis of the post-visit data sets revealed that students' conversations in their post-visit interview, and to a lesser extent the post-visit concept maps, were heavily contextualised in terms of their Sciencentre experiences. There were several experiences which were powerful in helping students construct new knowledge and understandings; specifically, students' interactions with the Curie Point, Magnet and TV,Making a Magnet, Magnetism Makes Electricity, Electric Motor, and Electric Generator exhibits. These exhibits also happened to be "Target Exhibits" labelled with an identifying sign to indicate to students that they should be sure to interact with them while in the gallery described in Appendix G. The following sections describe the changes and differences in students' know ledge and understandings of the topics of magnetism and electricity two to three days following their Sciencentre experiences. 196 Furthermore, a general overview of the ways in which their knowledge and understandings have changed, since the researcher's pre-visit interpretations in Phase A, will also be discussed. 5.4.1 Properties of magnets: Phase B Table 5.6 details the overall concept profile inventory for students' post-visit understandings of the Properties of Magnets. The most common changes in students' knowledge included the concepts 1.lB Magnets can ruin TVs, 1.2B Magnets make electricity, 1.3B Changing the polarity of an electric motor will change the direction it spins, lAB Metal can be magnetised, 1.SB Hot metal will not stick to a magnet, and 1.17B Heat repels magnets. This section will consider and deal with the details and characteristics of these knowledge changes. One third of students who interacted with the Curie Point exhibit developed alternative understandings by interpreting their experiences at the exhibit in terms of heat being a repelling force to magnets (1.17B). However, a quarter interpreted their experiences in terms of a scientifically acceptable conception which asserted that "hot metal will not stick to a magnet" (l.SB). There was no evidence from any of the data sets to suggest that students possessed anything more than declarative knowledge of their observations and understandings of this exhibit and the scientific principles it purports to communicate. A quarter of all students who interacted with the Magnet and TVexhibit developed the concept that magnets can ruin TVs (l.lB), while one student generated deeper insights relating to the way in which a magnet could deflect the path of electrons in the TV to produce different colours (l.9B & l.lOB) gained through his experience of reading the exhibit's label copy. 197 A third of students described understandings of the link between a moving magnet and its ability to produce electricity (1.2B). This was a significant change in students' overall understandings, since only one student was regarded as possessing this concept in Phase A. In all four instances (BOl, B07, B08, and Bll), students made reference to their experiences at the Magnetism Makes Electricity, Electric Motor, and/or Electric Generator exhibits, and in some way described the process by which moving magnets made electricity. A quarter of the students described their experiences with the Electric Motor exhibit in terms of its operational processes and the fact that changing the polarity of the external magnets in the casing of a motor caused it to spin in the opposite direction (1.3B). A quarter of the students described in detail their experiences at the Making a Magnet exhibit and appeared to have developed new understandings of the fact that metal objects can become magnetised. One student (B09) described a detailed understanding of this process (1.11B) in terms of the domain theory of magnetism. However, in the view of the researcher, the Sciencentre experiences were probably not entirely responsible for the development of this understanding, but rather allowed the student to retrieve more readily his pre-existing understandings which were not previously expressed in Phase A. Students' knowledge was seen to change in ways which can be linked with knowledge and understandings expressed in Phase A. For example, 10sie's (B02) understanding that "magnets can attract" (1.lA) has developed the added condition that "magnets do not attract copper" (1.6B). This condition was developed from her experiences with an exhibit called Magnet Materials at which many different sorts of materials could be tested to see if they were affected by a bar magnet. This kind of knowledge transformation is an example of progressive differentiation. Similarly, Sam's (B04) understandings of the "magnets can attract" (1. lA) concept has been progressively differentiated by the concept "magnets repel aluminium" (1.l8B). In this 198 instance, his interactions with the Levitating Dish exhibit, which show an aluminium dish levitating in response to a strong alternating magnetic field demonstrating the effect of Lenz's Law, has caused him to develop an alternative understanding of the properties of magnets. Another example of a progressive differentiation was demonstrated by Courtney's (B03) understanding of the "magnets can repel" (1.2A) concept which was recontextualised in the light of her experiences at the Floating Magnets exhibit. In this instance, she recounts her surprise at the way four magnets stacked on top of one another, like polarity against like polarity, repel each other and seem to float in mid air. Pushing down on the stack and releasing them causes them to "j ump" up and down. Her recontextualised understandings of the repulsion properties of magnets are encapsulated by concept 1.12B. These examples of progressive differentiation will be the subject of further discussion in Chapter Six. 199 Table 5.6 1.28 Magnets make electricity (Procedure Kn) 1.28 Magnets make electricity (Declarative Kn) 1.38 Changing the polarity about an electric motor will change the direction it spins 1.48 Metal can be magnetised 1.58 Hot metal will not stick to a magnet 1.68 Magnets do not attract copper D 1.78 Magnets attract only certain types of metal D 1.88 Magnets are needed to make an electric motor D 1.98 Magnets affect the colour of TVs D 1.108 Magnets attract electrons when put next to TVs C 1.118 Magnetising metal by stroking it with a magnet causes things in the metal C to line-up in the same direction 1.128 Repulsive magnetic forces can be so strong that they make things [other D magnets] jump 1.138 Heat causes metal to be "unmagnetised" P 1.148 Magnetism can pass through solid materials D 1.158 Magnets stick to metal D 1.168 Magnets are attracted to irons and steel D Alternative Views 1.178 Heat repels magnets D 1.188 Magnets repel aluminium D 1.198 80th positive and negative are required to make a magnet P 1.208 Two positives will not produce a magnetic force D 1.218 Two negatives will produce a repulsive force D The following are typical examples of statements made by students that illustrate their understanding of the general concepts. LIB Magnet can ruin TV s - 4 Magnets ruin TV s - They had a TV and it can also go on computers, urn, the TV. And whenever you put the magnet near it, different colours would come. And that happened on not just that one but on any TV if you stick it there on the screen. The same with the computers. Mr. Wallace told us about, um .. .if you had one of the old computers, someone put a magnet on the screen and no matter what they could do, there was - until the computer guy - urn, therewas always a sort of a grey markthere. - B02 And magnets can wreck TVs because if you put magnets on the side of it - two different types, a positive and negative, and it can wreck the TV. - Bll 200 1.2B Magnets make electricity · 4 Well, in the science experiment [exhibit at the science centre] where it said about the magnetism and how the electricity was made by moving a magnet. - B07 1.3B Changing the polarity of magnets about a motor will cause it to spin in the opposite direction · 3 I remember the one how you had the magnets on the side of the motor. And moved around, when you put them on, it made the motor go; and when you changed the side and put the magnetism on the other side, it reversed. - B03 Well, when you - they had this magnetic motor, and when you put - and it had, like, these coils in it, and when you - and it had this and when you put the two magnets on the side of it, it spun around. And when you turnedthe other way, it went the other way. - B08 l.4B Metal can be magnetised · 3 I remember the one with the screwdriver and the electricity [making a magnet exhibit] can cause the iron to become magnetised to other iron. - B lO 1.SB Hot metal will not stick to a magnet . 3 If you heat up metal to a certain temperature a magnet won't stick to it any more. - B02 Magnets will fall away for hot wires. - B06 Alternative Views 1.17B Heat repels magnets · 4 I joined heat and magnets [on my concept map] because heat repels magnets. -BOl [At the CuriePoint exhibit] you pressed the button on the display and there was this coil of wire and it heated up and the magnet was attracted to it, and when it heated up, the magnet repelled it. - B04 5.4.2 Earth's magnetic field, compasses, and applications of magnets: Phase B Table 5.7 details the overall concept profile inventory for students' post-visit understandings of Earth's magnetic field, compasses, and application of magnets. The most common changes in students' knowledge to emerge from the data sets included the concepts 2.1B Magnets can affect the direction a compass points, 2.2B Compasses point toward magnets, 2.3B Compasses point to the North and/or South Poles of the Earth because the needle is magnetised, and 2.4B Magnets cause motors to spin. This section will consider these and other changes in students' knowledge of this broad category. 201 It appeared evident that several exhibits which used compasses to demonstrate the presence of magnetic fields, had an effect on students' knowledge. Two exhibits, Magnetic Field and Magnetism fr om Electricity, provided experiences which resulted in students either developing new understandings of the behaviour of compasses near magnetic fields or recontextualising their previously held understandings in the light of their Sciencentre experiences. Half of the students described the fact that magnets can affect the direction a compass points (2.IB), while a third actually described more specifically the notion that compasses point toward magnets (2.2B), and a quarter described the scientificre asoning behind the fact that compasses point to the North and/or South Poles (2.3B). This latter concept emerged from three students who had neither previously expressed an understanding of the function of magnetic compasses in Phase A, nor seemed able to describe specificSc iencentre experiences which had led them to these more highly developed contextual understandings. It is, therefore, a possibility that the Sciencentre and/or the subsequent concept mapping and interview experiences served to make pre-existing understandings more readily retrievable during the Phase B data collection. Two students described an application of a magnet in terms of causing electric motors to spin (2AB). This concept developed from their experiences at the Electric Motor exhibit and was held by two of the three students who held concept 1.3B described in Section 5.3.1. The researcher regarded concept 2AB to be a precursor of concept 1.3B, since one must appreciate that the motor does spin, before understanding that changing the polarity of magnets surrounding the casing of the motor affects the direction it spins. Two students possessed some interesting alternative understandings, which appeared to be combinations and a merging of their understandings of gravity and magnetism. One of them, Greg (B IO), appeared to have merged his understandings of the strength of the Earth's magnetic field at thepoles with that of the strength of 202 gravitational fields (2.9B). Furthermore, since most everyday references regarding the operation of magnetic compass suggest that compasses point north, without due recognition that they also equally point south, Greg appeared to have merged his understandings of magnetic compasses in a way which caused him to believe that gravity is strongest at the North pole of the Eaith (2. lOB). The process of merging understanding from two semi-independent domains is a knowledge construction phenomenon that has been identifiedin other student knowledge transformations and will be a topic of focus in case studies of Josie (Section 6.3) and Hazel (Section 6.5). Table 5.7 Concept Profile Inventory - Students ' Post-Visit Understandings of Earth 's Magnetic Field, Compasses, and Applications of Magnets Fundamental Category: 2.08 Earth's Magnetic Field, ' F M,B , . �{f :::'�B:: : �§m:I B.B':���4� Compasses, and Application of Magnets 0 ! 1 ' Oli, Oi' t' !I� � \ ill'''' r2 2.1 8 Magnets can affect the direction a compass pOints 1�f & -¥-1 1 1 f� '� ' D 2.28 Compasses point toward magnets 1 d 1 D 2.38 Compasses point to the North and/or South Poles because the needle is C magnetised �" Y � 2.48 Magnets cause motors to spin 1 I P 2.58 Compasses are attracted to iron I, *W D 2.68 Magnetic North is different from true North D 2.78 Compasses point to the magnetic poles of the Earth 1 I " . �� D Alternative Views '� ' 11. 2.88 The magnetic North and South poles of the Earth, plus Earth's gravity all 1 help magnetism work 1;1:: I' p 2.98 Gravity is strongest at the Earth's poles ��, 1 D 2.108 Gravity is strongest at the Northpole LJr 1 '-- '-- -- - li, ,D The following are typical examples of statements made by students, that illustrate their understanding of the general concepts. 2.1B Magnets can affect the direction a compass points - 6 Magnets make compasses go funny and electricity makes compasses go funny. - B02 We turnedthe knob [at the Magnetic Field exhibit] and, um, the magnet thing in the middle turned and all the compasses were - um, moved. - B07 2.2B Compasses point toward magnets - 4 That one was showing when there was a metal type of magnet on theend of that white thing [the Magnetic Field exhibit]. Then when you turnedit around, all the compasses 203 would attract and all go [point] the same way. And - I'm not sure how that one worked. -Bll And when you turnedthat, the copper wire went round on ...when you turned.... no .. yeah.... when you turnedthat, that went round, and that obviously had a north and a south side on it. And the compasses pointed to the north side when it went round and the compasses went round. - B 12 2.3B Compasses point to the North and/or South poles because the needle is magnetised - 3 Well, the piece of metal is magnetised [a compass needle] so it points north - magnetic North because that's different from true North. A compass uses a magnetised conductor - well, the piece of metal is magnetised so it points north - magnetic north because that's different from true North. - B09 2.4B Magnets cause motors to spin - 2 They had(inaudible) had a - I think it was like a bar - I don't remember very clearly now, but when you press the button the electricity would go through andit started spinning. And with the magnets it had the same sort of thing except it had two big magnets here, and when you press the button it'd start going round but you'd have to put the two magnet on there, whichever way it (inaudible) - B02 I remember the one how you had the magnets on the side of the motor and moved around [at the Electric Motor exhibit], when you put them on, it made the motor go; and when you changed the side and put the magnetism on the other side, it reversed. - B03 5.4.3 Properties of electricity: Phase B Table 5.8 details the overall concept profile inventory for students' post-visit understandings of the properties of electricity. There did not appear to be any particular set of concepts that commonly emerged from Phase B under this fundamental category. Each of the following concepts was identifiedas a change in at least two students and included: 3.1B Electricity can create magnetism, 3.2B Electricity is moving electrons, 3.3B Electricity is made of lots of electrons, 3.4B Zinc and copper conduct electricity. The Sciencentre experiences appeared to have produced new understandings relating to the concept of the ability of electricity to create magnetism (3.1B). There were two different forms of knowledge construction processes arising from identification of this concept; addition and progressive differentiation. Sam (B04) previously held the understanding that electricity could create magnetism (3.3A) because he noted that electromagnets required electricity to produce a magnetic effect, while Greg (B 10) showed no evidence of this conceptual understanding as identified 204 from the Phase A interpretations. However, for both students, their experiences at the Making a Magnet exhibit, where a metal screwdriver placed in the core of a solenoid with a large electric current passing through it, generating an intense magnetic field resulted in the metal screwdriver becoming magnetised, had developed different types of changes in understanding. For Sam, concept 3.3A progressively differentiated to provide new understandings of the ways in which electricity could produce magnetism in terms of concept 3.1B. For Greg, the 3.IB concept which linked electricity and magnetism was completely new and an addition to his conceptual understandings. It is interesting to note that similar experiences at this exhibit in terms of students' behavioural interactions resulted in different forms of interpretation, knowledge, and knowledge construction processes. For two students, Heidi (B08) and Greg (B IO), there appeared to be some progressive differentiation of and/or additions to their ideas about the properties of electricity. Specifically, they had developed concepts relating to the fact that electricity is constituted of moving electrons (3.2B), and a realisation that there were a large number of moving electrons in any electric current (3.3B). There was no evidence from the data sets that describes how these ideas emerged for either student. The Hand Battery exhibit and/or a live facilitator-Iead demonstration helped at least two students (Alice, BO I and Hazel, B02) build declarative understandings that zinc and copper were two metals which were conductors of electricity. 205 Table 5.8 Concept Profile Inventory - Students ' Post-Visit Understandings of the Properties of Fundamental Category: 3.08 Properties of Electricity 3.1 3.2B Electricity is moving electrons 3.3B Electricity is made of lots of electrons 3.4B Zinc and copper conduct electricity 3.5B Water is a conductor of electricity 3.6B Conductors carry electricity I Non-conductors do not carry electricity 3.7B Electricity flowing through wires can magnetise metal 3.8B Electricity affects compasses 3.9B Electricity can heat metals D 3.10B Lightning can kill you D 3.1 1 B Thunder is heard after lightning strikes D 3.12B The positive and negative associated with electricity are different to the D positive and negative associated with magnetism 3.13B Electric current is electrons moving and bumping each other p Alternative Views 3.14B Two opposite charges pressing together will "jump" and produce a spark p like in the Rising Arc exhibit 3.1 5B The and negative associated with electricity is the same as the D and associated with m,,,,n,,·t;,,m The following are typical examples of statements made by students, that illustrate their understandings of the general concepts. 3.1B Electricity can create magnetism - 2 Well, I remember the one with the screwdriver and the electricity can cause the iron to urn become magnetised to other iron. - B 10 3.2B Electricity is moving electrons - 2 Electricity is moving electrons. - B 10 3.3B Electricity is made of lots of electrons - 2 Electricity is like lots and lots of electrons, electrons like - they're like little ones all floating around. - B08 3.4B Zinc and copper conduct electricity - 2 Zinc and copper conduct electricity ... I picked that up from the science show [at the science centre] by doing the experiment. - B02 206 5.4.4 Types of electricity, electricity production, and applications of electricity: Phase B Table 5.9 details the overall concept profile inventory for students' post-visit understandings of the types of electricity, electricity production, and application of electricity. The most frequently identified concepts in this fundamental category included 4.1B Static electricity is a form of electricity and 4.2B Static electricity is produced when you rub a balloon or comb your hair, 4.3B Electricity is created by friction, 4.4B Generators generate electricity, 4.5B Electricity can affect the direction a compass points, 4.6B The 'Hand Battery' can produce electricity, and 4.7B Connecting dissimilar metals can produce electricity. A quarter of the students constructed new and not previously identified understandings about the production of static electricity. For Alice (BOl) and Hazel (B02), the live demonstrations of the production of static electricity at the Sciencentre in which a facilitator rubbed a balloon to produce a charge on its surface and demonstrated the accumulation of change on a Van der Graaff Generator, appeared to have influenced their construction of this knowledge. Neither of these students made any mention of static electricity in any of the Phase A data set, so they were also regarded as appreciating that static electricity was a form of electricity, a declarative knowledge concept 4.1B, which was the same as concept 4.2A. For Roger (B 12), the ideas of static electricity production appeared to be somewhat more clearly expressed following the Sciencentre experiences. Specifically, he described static electricity in terms of electricity which did not move (4.9B). Two students developed knowledge relating electricity to the concept of friction (4.3B). One student, Heidi (B08), transformed her knowledge from the concept of "lightning is produced when water droplets rub together" (4.9A) to a seemingly more generalised notion, namely "friction creates lightning" (4.20B). Heidi's understandings 207 of relationships between friction and electricity concepts, and her subsequent knowledge transformations, will be the subject of further discussion in Chapter Six. Two students generated understanding relating to the production of electricity through generators (4.4B). Two others, Hazel (B02) and Susan (B06), developed understandings relating to the ability of electricity flowingthrough a coil to produce a strong magnetic field, and, in turn, to affect the direction a compass needle points (4.5B). This concept was derived from both students' interactions with the Magnetism fr om Electricity exhibit, and resulted in both progressive differentiation and addition of ideas. Specifically, both Hazel and Susan appreciated the fact that compasses were attracted to magnetic fields and affected by magnets (2.4A), but their interactions with the exhibit have led them to an understanding that electricity also seems to cause a similar effect, thus they appear to have added a new concept and progressively differentiated concept 2.4A. Both students' understandings were declarative in nature, in so far as they did not seem to appreciate reasons for the compasses being attracted to the coil in terms of the notion that electricity passing through a coil produced a strong magnetic field. The Hand Battery exhibit and/or a live facilitator-Iead demonstration helped at least two students, Hazel (B02) and J osie (B 11), build declarative understandings that zinc and copper were two metals which, when connected in a circuit, produced electricity (4.7B). This experience from the Sciencentre and subsequent addition of knowledge would later prove to be a powerful influence on subsequent knowledge, which was developed through the PVA experiences, and will be discussed in Section 5.4 and also in the case study discussion of Josie (Section 6.3) and Hazel (Section 6.5). 208 Table 5.9 Concept Profile Inventory - Students ' Post-Visit Understandings of the Typ es of 4.28 Static electricity is produced when you rub a balloon or comb you hair 4.38 Electricity is created by friction 4.48 Generators generate electricity 4.58 Electricity can affect the direction a compass points 4.68 The Hand Batterycan produce electricity 4.78 Connecting dissimilar metals can produce electricity 4.88 80th positive and negative change are needed to make electricity 4.98 Static electricity is electricity which is not moving 4.10 Electricity is produced when a magnet is passed through a coil of wire 4.1 18 Electric motors use magnets 4.128 8atteries use chemicals to make electricity 4.138 Solar power can produce electricity 4.148 Clouds make lightning 4.158 Static electricity can make lightning Alternative Views 4.168 Electric motors generate electricity D 4.178 Hands can make electricity D 4.1 88 Electricity is made of volts D 4.198 Lightning is made of volts D 4.208 Electricity is made when electrons touch one another P 4.21 8 Friction creates lightning P 4.228 The Hand Battery measures the current you are letting out of yo ur body D The following are typical examples of statements made by students that illustrate their understandings of the general concepts. 4.1B Static electricity is a form of electricity - 3 Well, when he rubbed the balloon to his hair ... [during the Sciencentre demonstration] and then he could put it on the wall. And he like - the balloon and the hair that's what makes static electricity. - B 11 4.2B Static electricity is produced when you rub a balloon or comb you hair - 3 Ijoined [on my concept map] static electricity and balloons because balloons can conduct electricity when you rub it and stuff. - Ba 1 4.3B Electricity is created by friction - 2 Electricity is created by friction and friction creates lightning; and it made by two drops of water rubbing together. - B08 Friction makes static electricity. - B09 209 4.4B Generators generate electricity - 2 Generators generate electricity, like, urn, using the - using coal they urn they generate electricity at power stations andth ings. - B06 4.5B Electricity can affect the direction a compass points - 2 It's urn - the electricity is sort of running away from the wire [at the Magnetism from Electricity exhibit] as well and makingthe compasses sort of go - the compass wheels go round in circles. - B06 4.6B The 'Hand Battery' can produce electricity - 2 And the hand battery. I thought that was really interesting because if you put one hand on the copper and one on the metal, then it made a battery. - B 11 4.7B Connecting dissimilar metals can produce electricity - 2 They got two people from the audience and one person had copper - a copper rod - and another person had the zinc. And theywere attached to a metre andit recorded the electricity going through. And when they touched each other, the electricity went up. Alternative Views 4.16B Electric motors generate electricity - 2 The electric motor generated electricity. - B06 5.4.5 Discussion: Phase B It was clear from the analysis of the post-visit data sets of the twelve students that they have had a variety of experiences during their visit to the Sciencentre, which have caused their knowledge and understandings of magnetism and electricity to transform in numerous ways. These transformations included 1) progressive differentiation of ideas; 2) addition of concepts; 3) merging of semi-independent concept domains; 4) recontexualising previously held concepts in the light of the Sciencentre experiences; 5) the emergence of pre-existing concepts which had been retrieved as a result of the Sciencentre experiences, but not revealed during the course of the Phase A data collection; 6) the development of procedural knowledge; and 7) personal theory development evidenced in the form of contextual knowledge. Sections 5.4.1, 5.4.2, 5.4.3, and 5.4.4 have served to provide a list of the interpreted conceptual changes which students have undergone since Phase A, in the form of CPls 1.0B, 2.0B, 3.0B, and 4.0B, and also to outline some of the aforementioned transformation, 1 through 7, identifiedin and substantiated by the data sets. 210 Not all concept changes in the domains of electricity and magnetism that students underwent were identified, since the probing methodologies, although thorough, were not exhaustive in terms of revealing every change which had resulted since Phase A. It was also apparent that students' pre-existing concepts gained from past school-based and out of school-based experiences relating to magnetism and electricity provided a framework from which new understandings were constructed. This was most commonly identifiedin examples of progressive differentiation of ideas; for example, Josie's (B ll) progressive differentiation of concept 1.1A to 1.6B or Sam's (B04) progressive differentiation of concept 3.3A to 3.1B. Table 5.10 provides the researcher's interpretation of the categories of knowledge types documented after the Sciencentre experiences and other experiences subsequent to the Phase A data collection. The table shows that at least 108 new concepts or concept changes were identified across the twelve students following their Sciencentre experiences. Two-thirds (68%) of these concepts were interpreted as being declarative in nature, while 26% were classifiedas procedural knowledge and 6% contextual knowledge. Consistent with the analysis of Phase A, students' knowledge bases relating to the topics of electricity and magnetism seems largely declarative in nature. Table 5.10 Summaryof Student Kn owledge Typ es In terpretedfrom Phase B < ------Fundamental Category------> Total Relative Percent l.OB 2.0B 3.0B 4.0B Declarative 23 15 16 21 75 68% Knowledge Procedural 11 3 3 10 27 26% Knowledge Contextual 2 3 0 1 6 6% Knowledge 211 A small number of students appeared to have developed personal theories and models of magnetism and electricity which they used to explain phenomena encountered during the course of their field trip visit. Also apparent are a small number of students who appear to have made increased conceptual links between the magnetism and electricity domains in terms of there inter-relationships. The transformations described brieflyin Section 5.4 form part of a general overview of the identified transformations. This view has the limitation that many of the associated and contributing parts of the knowledge transformation story are not considered in their entirety. Chapter Six will address these deficiencies by considering five individual students' changes in knowledge and understanding in more detail. 5.5 Post-Activity Phase (Phase C) One week following the field trip visit to the Sciencentre, all students participated in classroom-based PVAs described previously in Section 3.8.1 and detailed in Appendices E and F. Students worked individually as they reflectedon their Sciencentre experiences, and collaboratively in groups of three as they participated in the hands-on experiential parts of the PV A. All students successfully completed the PV A experiences and were able to produce the magnetic and electric effects intended by the PVA. In like manner to the concepts identifiedin Phase B, which were heavily contextualised in terms of the Sciencentre experiences, students' concepts interpreted and identified in Phase C were frequently contextualised in terms of the classroom based PV A experiences. In addition, all students reflected, linked, and contextualised their PV A experiences in the light of their Sciencentre and past life experiences, oftenin an attempt to make meaning of their empirical understandings of the PV A phenomena. 212 Very similar types of know ledge transformation processes identified in Phase B were seen in the analysis of Phase C. All reported concepts listed in the CPls of Phase B were considered to represent changes or differences in students' knowledge and understandings which had arisen since the interpretations conducted in Phases A and B. The analysis procedures were conducted in the way described in Section 3.9.2.1. Since the interpretation, identification, and categorisation of concepts were conducted independently in each Phase of Stage Three, the numbering system of concepts in this Phase bears no connection with the concepts of other Phases of the study. For the maj ority of students the PV As, designed to demonstrate the relationships between magnetism and electricity in terms of their mutual production, were powerfulin generating transformations in their understandings of the relationships between the two domains. The following sections describe the transformations in students' knowledge which occurred following their classroom-based, PV A experiences. 5.5.1 Properties of magnets: Phase C Table 5.11 details the overall concept profile inventory for students' post-activity understandings of the properties of magnets. The most commonly identified changes in knowledge and understanding included the concepts: 1.lC Magnets can create electricity, 1.2C Electromagnets are made by passing electricity through a coil of wire containing an iron core, 1.3C Magnets caused electrons to move inside the wire of a solenoid which produced the electricity, l.4C Electromagnets cease to be magnets when the electricity is switched off, and 1.5C Magnetic forces can pass through solid materials, all of which pertained directly to students' PVA experience of induction and making an electromagnet. 213 More than half of the students (seven of the twelve) developed new, enhanced, or recontexualised understandings of a magnet's abilityto produce electricity (1.lC). This represents a marked change in students' overall understanding of this declarative knowledge, given that only one student seemed to possess a form of this knowledge (1.19A, Table 5.1) as determined during Phase A and four students at the time of Phase B (1.2B, Table 5.6). The analysis of all data sets suggests that only two students (C02 and C03) did not have any identifiableappreciation of some form of this knowledge 1.lC at the conclusion of the study. Two of these seven students, Alice (COl) and AlIen (C07), previously constructed a form of this knowledge from their Sciencentre experiences (Concept 1.2B, Table 5.6). However, they had recontextualised their understandings of this idea in terms of their description of PV A experiences. For the other students, Sam (C04), Jenny (COS), Susan (C06), Andrew (C09), and Greg (ClO), the concept appeared to be newly developed from the PVA experiences. Seven students developed new understandings of the process by which an electromagnet could be made, from their PV A experiences (1.2C). All of these students, with the exception of Roger (C12) who appears to have recontextualised his Phase A concept 1.17 A (Table 5.1), had not previously described any identifiable procedural understandings of the process of making an electromagnet. Two students constructed understandings that when the electricity ceases to flowthrough an electromagnet it loses its magnetic properties (lAC). It would seem that more students should have constructed this concept through their experiences during the PV A, but, in practice, the iron core remained magnetised for some time after the power was switched off. Three students, AlIen (C07), Andrew (C09), and Roger (C12), were able to provide detailed, advanced level contextual understandings of the induction process in terms of the magnetic force pushing electrons within the wire (1.3C). Their description of this process provides evidence of the development of a cohesive personal theory of electricity and magnetism, which accounts for their empirical observations during the 214 course of the PV A, and will be the focus for greater attention in the case studies of Roger and Andrew in Chapter Six. Two students described instances which describe the ability of magnetic forces to pass through solid media. Josie's (C11) understanding appears to reorganise and merge in multiple ways and will also be the focus of attention in Chapter Six. Particularly interesting was the unforeseen development of alternative concept 1.10C which associated the concept of heat with magnetism, which was developed by two students The origins of this concept were, in part, developed from students noting that the solenoid in the electromagnet PV A heated up when it was connected to the power supply (Concept 3.2C, Table 5.13). The development of concept 1.1OC is complicated and involves multiple transformation processes, including addition, organisation, progressive differentiation, recontextualision, and merging of semi independent concept domains. This particular transformation will be the focus of case study discussion about Roger in Section 6.4. Not noted in previous phases was a disassociation knowledge transformation. Specifically, Josie's (C11) concept(s) that opposite poles of magnets attract each other (1.1A and 1.22A) changed in some way, which caused her to believe that they do not attact one another. This transformation will be further addressed in the case study of Josie in Section 6.3. 215 Table 5.11 Concept Profile In ventory - Students ' Post-Activity Understandings of the Properties of Magnets Fu ndamentaI Cate9ory: 1 OC p rope rties of Ma9nets • ' -,--,-:::---:-:-_--:-______1.1 C Magnets can create-,:- electricity:-....,-:-..". 1.2C Electromagnets are made by passing electricity through a coil of wire lt1�[1� containing an iron core 1.3C Magnets cause electrons to move inside the wi re of a solenoid which produced the electricity 1.4C Electromagnets cease to be magnets when the electricity is switched off 1 .SC Magnetic forces can pass through solid materials 1.6C Magnets attract and repel other magnets 1.7C Heat can "unmagnetise" wi re 1.BC The iron core of the electromagnet seems to remain magnetic for a little while after the electricity is switched off 1.9C Magnets can attract and repel iron Altemative Views 1.1 QC Heat has something to do with magnetism 1.11C Magnets repel aluminium 1.12C An iron core can be made into a magnet by placing it in a solenoid and passing electricity through it and then waving a magnet over the top of it. 1.13C Positive and negative force, gravity, and the South and North magnetic poles all help make magnetism 1.14C Gravity can create magnetism 1 .1SC Positive and negative magnets do not attract each other 1.16C Thermometers use magnetism to measure heat � - - - � The following are typical examples of statements made by students that illustrate their understandings of the general concepts. 1.1 C Magnets can create electricity - 7 Magnetism makes electricity. - COl Magnetism can create electricity. - C04 We move a magnet in front of the copper rod and then the meter moved which showed that we made electricity. - C07 [We] connected a meter to some wire to a coil and it had an iron bar in the middle and then you waved the magnet around the outside and it would make a very small amount of electricity. - ClO 1.2C Electromagnets are made by passing electricity through a coil of wire containing an iron core -7 We made the electromagnet with the coil and the rod and the transformer ... we got it to work once and we pick up most of the paperclips. - C09 The coil, when you have electricity passing through it, it has a magnetic fieldand that, that makes the [iron] bar has a magnetic field too. - ClO 216 There was this battery and we put it up to 12 volts and we got the wire again and we joined it up with the battery, and we put the iron bar inside it. We turnedon - we connected the battery and after about 10 seconds it became a magnet by itself. - C04 1.3C Magnets cause electrons to move inside the wire of a solenoid which produced the electricity - 3 [Moving the magnet in front of the coil of wire] sort of moved the electrons around, like they're moving ... they made electricity. - C09 The [moving] magnet made the electrons move which made the meter move ... it's hard to explain. - C07 l.4C Electromagnets cease to be magnets when the electricity is switched off - 3 If electricity isn't travelling though the magnet, it doesn't pick up the paper clips. - C05 Well it's not a permanent magnet, so only when the power is on. And also , sometimes if you leave the power on for long enough it will, not permanently, but magnetise it for a short time after the power is off. - C09 1.SC Magnetic forces can pass through solid materials - 2 [Once] I got one magnet on top of a coffee table and the other below and I was going about [moving one magnet around with the other] . It was fun.- C09 Alternative Views 1.l0C Heat has something to do with magnetism - 2 We joined the power supply to the clips, we joined the clips together and then that heated up the copper wire and that made the iron bar thing, the iron bar magnet. - C07 Well, we found that when you had the iron core in it and it was - the coil of wire was electrified, it became hot and after a while the iron coil would magnetise, but if you - in ours if you took it out of it and you tried to pick up some paperclips or something, it wouldn't so you had to keep it in all the time. - C12 5.5.2 Earth's magnetic field, compasses, and applications of magnets: Phase C Table 5.12 details the overall concept profile inventory for students' post-activity understandings of Earth's magnetic field, compasses, and application of magnets. Two concepts emerged as being common to several students in this Phase, specifically, 2.1C, Magnets cause electric motors to spin and 2.2C, Compasses are affected by magnets. Both of these concepts were described with reference to the students' Sciencentre experiences. Of the three students who had developed concept 2.1 C, two, Alice (CO 1) and AlIen (C07), had not mentioned the connection in any of the preceding data sets, while Hazel (C02) appeared to have refined her understandings of the process from those 217 expressed in the Phase B data collection as demonstrated by a comparison of her quotes from concept 2.4B (Section 5.3.2) and concept 2.1C (Section 5.4.2). Interestingly, this concept was developed from experiences these students had at the Sciencentre, but did not emerge until afterthe PV A experiences where it was contextualised in the light of their classroom-based experiences. Concepts 2.1 C, 2.3C, and 2.5C were ones that contextualised Sciencentre-based experiences in terms of PVA experiences specifically; students with these concepts appreciated and described the operation of electric motors in terms of electromagnets. Two other students, Sam (C04) and AlIen (C07), appeared to have changed the ways in which they describe the ability of magnets to affect compasses. In particular, they both use the term "control" in their description of the previously identified concept 2.1B and 2.2B. In this sense, there appears to be some form of progressive differentiation of ideas since the Phase B data collection. Alternative understandings of the Earth's gravitational and magnetic fieldswere also identified in the Phase. For Heidi (C08), her previously stated understandings of concept 2.8B (Table 5.7) appeared more integrated and interconnected in her self generated concept map of this Phase. Thus, it appears that 2.8B had progressively differentiated in some ways to form 2.7C. This transformation will be more fully addressed in Heidi's case study in Section 6.6. Concept 2.8C also seems to have resulted from some form of progressive differentiation of concepts 2.9B and 2.10C (Table 5.7) discussed in Section 5.3.2. 218 Table 5.12 Concept Profile Inventory - Students ' Post-Activity Understandings of Earth 's Magnetic and Fundamental Category: 2.0C Earth's Magnetic Field, Compasses, and Application of Magnets 2.1 C Magnets cause electric motors to spin 2.2C Compasses are affected by magnets 2.3C Electric motors use electromagnets to make them work 2.4C An electromagnet is stronger if you keep the iron core inside the solenoid 2.5C Magnets inside motors attract and repel Alternative Views 2.6C Multimeters can test the + or - polarity of a magnet 2.7C The magnetic North and South poles plus the Earth's gravity all help magnetism work 2.8C Magnetism is stronger at the North pole compared to the South pole of the Earth The following sections describe the transformation in students' knowledge which occurred following their classroom-based experiences. 2.1 C Magnets cause electric motors to spin - 3 At the Sciencentre when you have - I think it was copper wire round a - and it had a switch and two round magnets. And when you turn on the switch, the motor would spin around. - C02 2.2C Compasses are affected by magnets - 2 Magnets control the way in which a compass points. - C04 5.5.3 Properties of electricity: Phase C Table 5.13 details the overall concept profile inventory for students' post-activity understandings of properties of electricity. The most commonly identified changes in concepts in this fundamental category appear to be ones which are strongly contextualised in terms of the PV A experiences and include: 3.1C Electricity can create magnetism, 3.2C Electricity flowingthrough a coil of wire will produce heat, 3.3C Electricity passing through an iron filledcoil of wire will make an electromagnet, 3.4C Electricity is measured in Amps, and 3.SC Electrons need a magnetic force to make them travel. 219 More than half of the students (seven of the twelve) had constructed new or enhanced understandings of the concept "electricity can create magnetism" (3.1 C). For four of these students, Hazel (C02), Susan (C06), Allen (C07), and Josie (Cl 1), this concept appears to be new and not previously evident in any of the earlier data sets. However, Andrew (C08) and Roger (C12), had expressed this view in Phase A - concept 3.3A (Table 5.3), while Greg (ClO) expressed this view in Phase B - concept 3.lB (Table 5.8). The views of Andrew, Roger, and Greg had progressively differentiated in so far as they were now recontextualised and expressed in terms of the PVA experiences. A quarter of the students made mention of the fact that the solenoid heated-up as electricity passed though it during the construction of an electromagnet in the PV A. This effect was not considered by the researcher in the development and implementation of this part of the PV A. However, this "unforseen" effect appeared to be a powerful influence on the development of concepts and entrenched the alternative association of heat and magnetism for a number of students. Concept 3.3C was regarded as being similar to concept 1.2C, the difference being that students with a understanding of concept 3.3C appeared to place greater emphasis on the link between magnetic fieldproducing effects of electricity than simply the procedural aspects of making an electromagnet in terms of concept 1.2C. Concept 3.5C, held by two students, provides some evidence of the development of coherent theories to account for students' observations during the PVAs. Interestingly, there were a diversity of alternative concepts identified in this Phase, such as, 3.13C Electricity flowsfaster through copper than other metals, 3.l4C The + and - of electricity are the same as the + and - of magnets, 3 .15C Heat has something to do with the making of electricity 3 .16C Heat has got something to do with charge flowing through wires, and 3.l7C Electricity is in the form of + and - electrons. Although 220 strictly regarded as being alternative understandings with respect to the accepted scientific perspective, many of these concepts are also indicative of students' development of detailed personal theories of magnetism and electricity, and could, when viewed with their associated links to other concepts, represent detailed contextual understandings of the scientific domains. Table 5.13 Concept Profile Inventory - Students ' Post-Activity Understandings of the Properties of Fundamental Category: 3.0C Properties of Electricity 3.1 3.2C Electricity flowing through a coil of wire will produce heat 3.3C Electricity passing through an iron filled coil of wire will make an electromagnet 3.4C Electricity is measured in Amps 3.5C Electrons need a magnetic force to make them travel 3.6C Electricity flows from - to + 3.7C Electrons are very small D 3.BC Electricity can magnetise things D 3.9C Electricity makes power D 3.1 QC Electrons travel through wires D 3.1 1 C Electrons make up electricity D 3.12C Amps are a measure of the flow of electricity C Alternative Views 3.13C Electricity flows faster through copper than other metals 3.14C The + and - of electricity are the same as the + and - of magnets 3.15C Heat has something to do with the making of electricity 3.16C Heat has got something to do with charge flowing through wi res 3.17C Electricity is in the form of + and - electrons The following sections detail the transformation in students' knowledge which occurred following their classroom-based experiences. 3.1 C Electricity can create magnetism - 7 We gave power to the coil of wire which had the bolt inside and it became magnetised. - C06 3.2C Electricity flowing through a coil of wire will produce heat - 4 We joined the power supply to the clips, we joined the clips together and then that heated up the copper wire and that made the iron barthing, the iron bar magnet. - C07 221 Well, we found that when you had the iron core in it and it was - the coil of wire was electrified, it became hot and after a while the iron core would magnetise. - Cl2 3.3C Electricity passing through an iron-filled coil of wire will make an electromagnet - 3 Well, you had the electricity flowingthrough the wire and into the coil, and then you put the iron core in which then urnthe iron core became an electromagnet and then you could pick up the paperclips. - Cl2 3.4C Electricity is measured in Amps - 2 An amp is a measure of electricity. - C04 3.SC Electrons need a magnetic force to make them travel - 2 It [the magnet] sort of moved the electrons around, like they are moving and making the current... A09 5.5.4 Types of electricity, electricity production, and applications of electricity: Phase C Table 5.14 details the overall concept profile inventory for students' post-activity understandings of the types of electricity, electricity production, and application of electricity. Students developed a large number and wide variety of concepts from their PVA experiences relating to this fundamental category. The most commonly identified conceptual changes were strongly contextualised in terms of the PVA experiences and include: 4.1 C Electricity is produced by waving a magnet in front of a coil of wire, 4.2C Ammeters/meters measure electricity, 4.3C Generators generate/produce electricity, 4.4C The faster you move a magnet in front of a coil the more electricity it will produce, 4.5C A big coil of wire spinning in a magnet will produce electricity at the power station, and 4.6C Only a very small amount of electricity was produced in the PV A. All students developed new understandings in association with the Magnets can create electricity concept (l.lC, Table 5.11). These knowledge and understandings appear to be clearly contextualised in terms of students' participation in the PVAs. Three of these students (Jenny COS, Susan C06, and Greg ClO) observed and described the process and fact that the speed with which the magnet moved across the coil was related to the amount of electricity which was produced (4.4C). Three students were able to contextualise their understanding of the production of electricity during the PV A to a real-world application of the spinning of large coils of wire in magnetic fields at the 222 power station as the means by which household power was produced (4.5C). Two students made mention that there was only a very small amount of electricity produced in the PVA (4.6C). Almost half of the students (five ofthe twelve) described ammeters as devices which could measure electricity (4.2C). Three students described new understandings of electrical generators (4.3C) and two indicated that "power supplies" produced electricity (4. 7C). Interestingly, two students, Hazel (C02) and Josie (Cll), held the alternative conception that the dissimilar metals used in the PV A (copper coil and iron core) were in part responsible for the production of the electricity (4.2lC). This view was, in part, attributed to the students' experiences at the Hand Battery exhibit and/or the facilitator led demonstration of electricity production through the connection of dissimilar metals at the Sciencentre. These changes in understanding were regarded by the researcher as comprising multiple knowledge transformations including, addition of concept 4.lC, progressive differentiation of previously held concepts of magnetism and electricity, reorganisation of the connections between concepts, and merging of semi-independent concept domains. Discussion of the development of this knowledge will be discussed in the case study of Hazel and Josie in Section 6.5 and 6.3 respectively. Also noteworthy was the large number of alternative understandings that emerged from students' experiences illustrated by concepts 4.2lC through 4.30C. Almost every one of these concepts, although alternative with respect to accepted scientific views of electricity and magnetism, was an example of students' attempts to provide meaning, explanations, and personal theory for their observations and experiences. In many instances, students were drawing on their previous Sciencentre and life experiences to make meaning of the PV A experiences. These stories will also be the focus of discussion in Chapter Six. 223 Table 5.14 Concept Profile Inventory - Students ' Post-Activity Understandings of the Typ es of Electricity, Electricity Production, and Application of Electricity Fundamental Category: 4.0C Types of Electricity, Electricity Production, and Application of Electricity 4.1 C Electricity is produced by waving a magnet in front 4.2C Ammeters/meters measure electricity 4.3C Generators generate/produce electricity 4.4C The faster you move a magnet in front of a coil the more electricity it will produce 4.5C A big coil of wi re spinning in a magnet will produce electricity at the power station 4.6C Only a very small amount of electricity was produced in the PVA 4.7C Power supplies make/supply electricity 4.BC Electricity runs electric motors 4.9C Batteries supply/store electricity 4.1 QC A circuit turns a light bulb on 4.1 1 C Static electricity is a type electricity 4.12C When electricity is turned off from an electromagnet it will cease to be a magnet 4.13C Aluminium, copper and moisture help the flow of electricity 4.14C Electric motors are run by magnets 4.15C Static electricity can be produced by rubbing a balloon with a cloth combing your hair 4.1 6C Batteries are made from copper and zinc D 4.17C Lightning is a form of static electricity D 4.1 8C You brain uses electricity to tell you what to do p 4.19C A transformer will short it self out if it detects a shortcir cuit D 4.2QC Magnetic forces cause electrons to move in the coil of wi re which C produces an electric current Altemative Views 4.21 C Dissimilar metals were in part responsible for the production of electricity c in the PVA 4.22C A magnetic field rubbing against a coil of wire creates electrons that c create electricity 4.23C When a magnetic field rubs against a coil it creates friction and this c creates electricity 4.24C Electrons are created by friction D 4.25C Static electricity is created by waves D 4.26C The Hand Battery exhibit measured the amount of electricity in yo ur D 4.27C Electrons touching one another produce electricity P 4.2BC Ammeters indicate the amount of magnetism D 4.29C Magnetic forces cause electrons to touch one another producing C electricity 4.3QC More electricity is produced by moving the magnet in front of the coil c because of friction 224 The following sections describe the transformation in students' knowledge which occurred following their classroom-based, PV A experiences. 4.1C Electricity is produced by waving a magnet in front of a coil of wire - 8 We waved the magnet in front of the copper rod, and then the meter moved ... [indicating] we made electricity. - C07 We connected a meter to some wire to a coil and it has an iron bar in the middle and then you waved the magnet around the outside and it would make a very small amount of electricity. - ClO 4.2C Ammeters/meters measure electricity - 5 We connected the coil with alligator clips to the multi meter, and that measured the electricity. - C08 Down here [on the concept map], well with electricity I just did the same cause magnetism makes electricity and electrical currents, I figured that out because there's a meter and it shows, like the current, like how much electricity there was. - C 11 4.3C Generators generate/produce electricity - 4 Generators generate electricity. - COl Generators give out electricity. - C04 4.4C The faster you move a magnet in front of a coil the more electricity it will produce - 4 The faster you moved the magnet, the electricity would be more. - C06 When you move the magnet slow, hardly any electricity comes onto the metre, and then you do it fast, electricity comes through onto the meter. - C05 4.5C A big coil of wire spinning between magnets produce electricity at the power station - 3 Urn, water and steam and coal produce steam - no. Water and coal produce steam which turns a turbine which creates electricity because they have a big coil that rotates inside a - the turbine turns the coil that goes round inside a big magnet which creates electricity. - C08 4.6C Only a very small amount of electricity was produced in the PVA - 3 We connected a meter to some wire to a coil and it has an iron bar in the middle and then you waved the magnet around the outside and it would make a very small amount of electricity. - ClO We made a millionth of an Amp [in the PV A.] - C07 4.7C Power supplies make/supply electricity - 2 Power supplies make electricity. - COl 4.8C Electricity runs electric motors - 2 Electric motors use electricity. - ClO Alternative Views 4.21C Dissimilar metals were responsible for the production of electricity in the PVA - 2 Well the iron and the copper, it wouldn't work if the iron wasn't there and it wouldn't work if the copper wasn't there. - C02 225 5.5.5 Discussion: Phase C The PV A experiences of Phase C appeared to have transformed students' knowledge and understanding of electricity and magnetism in numerous ways. First, the experiences appear to have been associated with the development of a large number and wide diversity of new and modifiedconcep ts. These also included a number of alternative understandings, but these are seen and interpreted by the researcher as being evidence of progression in understanding and development of detailed personal theories and conceptions of topic domains. Table 5.15 shows a total of 128 new or modified concepts which have been interpreted by the researcher since Phase B of the study. One-third of these (64%) were considered to be declarative in nature, while 27% were procedural, and 9% were contextual. These proportions were similar to those noted in Phase B (Table 5.10) of the study. Table 5.15 Summary of Student Knowledge Typ es In terpretedfrom Phase C < ------Fundamental Category ------> Total Relative Percent 1.0C 2.0C 3.0C 4.0C Declarative 23 8 24 27 82 64% Knowledge Procedural 8 3 5 19 34 27% Knowledge Contextual 3 0 1 8 12 9% Knowledge It is interesting to note that the relative percentages for declarative, procedural, and contextual knowledge were very similar to those resulting from the analysis of Phase B, where much of students' experiences were also characteristically hands-on in nature. Furthermore, there appears to be an apparent shift from Phase A, when knowledge was mostly declarative in nature to increased proportions of procedural and contextual knowledge in Phases B and C. 226 There was also a diversity of processes by which students' knowledge was interpreted as being transformed; these included: 1) progressive differentiation of ideas previously identified in Phases A and B; 2) addition of new concepts; 3) merging of semi-independent concept domains; 4) recontexualising previously held concepts in the light of the PVA, Sciencentre, and past life experiences; 5) the emergence of pre existing concepts which had been retrieved as a result of the PV A and Sciencentre experiences, but not revealed during the course of the Phase A and/or Phase B data collection; 6) the development of procedural knowledge; and 7) personal theory development evidenced in the form of contextual knowledge. In addition, a new transformation process not previously identifiedin Phase B: 8) disassociation of concepts previously identified inprevious Phases, was identified. Furthermore, personal theory development (7) and recontextualisation (4) were transformations more frequently identified in this phase compared with concepts and transformations in previous phases. Following the PVA experiences, seven students constructed knowledge interrelating the concepts of magnetism and electricity. Of these, four students had not previously mentioned any relation between the two concepts, the other four had refined their understanding of the relationship between the concept domains as a result of the PV A experience. Most significant among the knowledge transformations were student developed theories and models which were constructed to provide explanations for their observations of both PVA, Sciencentre-based experiences, and personal experiences. Furthermore, there appears general evidence that students were constructing new understandings in the light of their previous experiences revealed and interpreted in Phases A and B of the study. 227 5.6 Summary Chapter Five has provided a general overview, analysis, and discussion of data gathered from twelve student participants in the study. It is claimed that students developed numerous and diverse conceptual understandings resulting from their Sciencentre and PVA experiences, in addition to their previous life experiences, through which much of their understandings expounded in this study were interpreted. The data illustrate that knowledge and understanding do not exist and develop in isolation, but concepts are interconnected and related to other knowledge the individual possesses. This was evident not only in terms of the knowledge and understanding students described at each phase of the study, but also between the phases where evidence of different forms of knowledge transformation processes was interpreted and documented by the researcher. The consolidated data presented in Chapter Five do not enable a detailed analysis to be made of the learning of individual students engaged in the Sciencentre visit and the subsequent PV As in their classroom. Chapter Six presents the case studies of five students, Roger, Heidi, Josie, Andrew, and Hazel, in terms of their overall knowledge and understandings, their experiences, and the processes by which their knowledge was transformed. 228 Chapter Six Case Studies of Knowledge Constructors 6.1 Introduction Chapter Five dealt with the data collected in Stage Three of the study through description and interpretation of overall group data pertaining to the twelve students under investigation and has satisfied primarily Researchob jective (A) (Section 3.2). This chapter is structured in a way which primarily satisfies Research Objective (B) (Section 3.2), through more fully and effectively discussing and interpreting the processes of knowledge construction of five students in holistic ways. Data from the concept maps and probing interviews were analysed and case reports for each student were compiled. The following sections present case reports about five students, Andrew, Josie, Roger, Hazel, and Heidi, all of whom constructed knowledge about magnetism and electricity as a result of their Sciencentre, classroom-based post-visit activity (PVA) experiences, and other experiences. These students were selected from the twelve because they were representitive of different types of knowledge constructors. In each case the student's knowledge developed in ways which were at times consistent with the canons of science, and at other times, ways which entrenched alternative conceptions or developed new alternative conceptions. Regardless of the scientific acceptability of each of the five student's knowledge, his or her understandings were seen to change and develop in ways which demonstrated increased levels of personal meaning for each student. Each of the following case studies will describe the knowledge and understandings each student possessed at the commencement of the study and the subsequent changes to those understandings following Phases B and C of the study. These knowledge and understandings are represented in concept profileinventories (CPI) for each case and contain the concepts the student held as identified in Phase A, and the subsequent changes identified inPhase B and C. The CPI for each case 229 also details numerous exemplars of knowledge transformations. These link and describe the knowledge transformation processes within and across the Phases of the study. All of the processes of learning identified in Chapter Five were seen among the student cases described here in Chapter Six, i.e., Emergence, Progressive Differentiation (P.D.), Personal Theory Building (P.T.B.) and alike. The researcher generated concept maps (RGCM) for each student were included as part of the case description. As previously reported in Section 3.9.2.3, oval shaped, blue nodes represented students' original drawings; rounded-shaped rectangular, red nodes, were those drawn by students on their maps during the course of their probing interview, and rectangular-shaped, green nodes were those added by the researcher after analysis of the interview data sets. In order to improve the readability of the maps, rectangular nodes with a shaded left side represent a repeated node on the diagram to which an interconnection should be directed. In keeping with the colour coding of the nodes, coloured interconnecting lines between nodes also represented the student's original markings (blue), student's additions (red), and the researcher's additions (green). On occasions where the researchers felt the interconnections between nodes were weak or uncertain, links were denoted by a dashed line. Finally, supporting excerpts from their interviews detailing their related learning experiences (RLE) (Section 3.9.2.2) and changes in understandings. 230 6.2 The Case Study of Andrew 6.2.1 Andrew's background and characteristics Andrew was regarded by his teacher as being a very able student, and came from a home environment where education was highly valued (father a solicitor; mother a medical doctor). The following excerpt, from an interview with Andrew's teacher, summarises some of Andrew's background and typical classroom behaviour: Andrew was a student who moved through his routine classroom activity work very quickly. He was known to have undertaken extension activities in major subject areas such as Science, Art, and History. Andrew demonstrated in depth insight about mathematical and scientific concepts and had often commented on the numerous educational trips he has taken with his mother, from a very early age, to venues such as science centres and museums in Australia as well as overseas. In the view of the researcher,Andrew was a student who possessed a considerable knowledge and understanding of the topics of electricity and magnetism as determined by the initial rounds of data collection, prior to his visit to the Sciencentre. Andrew's comprehensive knowledge of topics appeared to have developed from a rich variety of related learning experiences (RLE) which were derived from a number of different sources including: his parents, who provided enrichment and extra-curricular activities; reading books in his discretionary time; television programs; disassembling electric and motor driven toys; as well as school and classroom-based experiences. Throughout the following discussion of Andrew's pre-visit knowledge and understandings, selected excerpts from his pre-visit interview will illustrate some of the experiences from which Andrew claims his understandings originated. Figure 6.1 details Andrew's CPI and some of the identifiedknowledge transformations interpreted by the researcher. 231 1.0A Properties of Magnets 1 .1 A Magnets can attract 1 .2A Magnets can repel 1.4A Opposite polarities of magnets attract each other and like polarities repel 1.10A Metal can be magnetised by st roking it with another magnet Alternative views 1.20A Magnets have positive and negative ends + m Earth's Magnetic Field, Compasses, and Application of Magnets 3 2.0A '" 2.1A Compasses point to the north pole of the Earth/ Point north and/or south ca'" 2.2A Earth has a magnetic field :J " 2.3A Magnets are used in motors .'" 2.SA Magnets (electro magnets) are u sed in rubbish dumps "1l 2.6A A simple compass can be made by magnetising a pin in a cork and placing it in a cup of water � 2.7A Compass needles are magnetised 2.8A Compass needles point north be cause they are magnetic Cl: 2.1 4A Electromagnets are made by p assing electricity through a coil of copper wire Q) 2.1SA Electromagnets in motors switc h their polarity to keep a motor spinning III «I .c Properties of Electricity D.. 3.0A 3.2A Electricity flows through wires !" '":D 3.3A Electricity can create magnetism " 3.4A Metals and/or water are conductors of electricity a 3.SA Wood and/or plastic are insulato rs of electricity 3.7A Volts and/or amps and/or watts are a measure of electricity c: !!!.� 3.8A Electrons move through wires / t ravels in a current oj" 3.1 0A Conductors allow electricity to pass through them !!l- o· 3.1 2A Insulators do not allow electricity to pass through them :J Alternative View 3.18A Electricity has positive and negative charge 4.0A Types of Electricity, Electricity Production, and Applications of Electrici� ,In 4.1 A Lightning is a form of electricity "1l 4.2A Static Electricity is a form of elect ricity ,0 ... 4.3A Batteries make and/or store elect ricity "1l !" "1l 4.8A A Dynamo turns turbines to gen erate electricity � ,0 4.1 0A Lightning is a discharge of stat ic electricity from the perspective of a negative charge !D m 4.32A Multimeters measure the charge in your body 3 '" ca'" Propertiesof Magnets :J " !'" 1 .1 1 B Magnetising metal by stroking it with a magnet causes things in the metal to line-up in the same directio '" "1l � Earth's Magnetic Field, Compasses, and Application of Magnets � 2.0B "1l 2.3B Compasses point to the North a nd/or South Poles because the needle is magnetised ,0 2.6B Magnetic North is different from true North !'" CD:D 11.OB " � 3.0B Properties of Electricity a � a "1l 3.13B Electric current is electrons moving and bumping each other '" � � o· rl---< '! c: p ? :g Alternative views :D 3.1 4B Two opposite charges pressing together will "jump" and produce a spark like in the exhibit--< !!!. '" :D -&. Rising Arc oj" " '" !!l- a a o· a ca!lJ 4.0B Types of Electricity, Electricity Production, and Applications of Electricity '" :J � 4.3B Electricity is created by friction c: (ij" t !!!. �. 4.4B Generators generate electricity 00' a 4.8B Both positive and negative change are needed to make electricity !!l- ? ... o· "1l !'" 4.1 1 B Batteries use chemicals to make electricity 11. Emergence 1 � "1l j Alternative views t p 4.22B The measures th e current you are letting out of your body Hand Battery "1l � 1.0C Properties of Magnets !D 1.1 C Magnets can create electricity 1 .3C Magnets cause electrons to move inside the wire of a solenoid which produced the electricity I.4C Electromagnets cease to be magnets when the electricity is switched off I.SC Magnetic forces can pass through solid materials 110. Emergence l 1.8C The iron core of the electromag net seems to remain magnetic for a little while after the electricity is switched off 2.0C Earth's Magnetic Field, Compasses, and Application of Magnets 3.0C Properties of Electricity Q) o 3.1 C Electricity can create magnetism !'" Q) 3 . SC Electrons need a magnetic forc e to make them travel "1l !!l• v Alternative Views p -&. 3.14C The + and - of electricity are the same as the + and - of magnets "1l � iD 4.0C Types of Electricity, Electricity Production, and Application of Electricity 4.1 C Electricity is produced by wavin g a magnet in front of a coil of wi re T 4.4C The faster you move a magnet in front of a coil the more electricity it will produce 4.1 8C Your brain uses electricity to te 11 you what to do 1 4.19C A transformer will short it self 0 ut if it detects a short circuit 11. Addition I 4.21 C Magnetic forces cause electro ns to move in the coil of wire which produces an electric current Alternative Views 4.26C The Hand Battery exhibit measured the amount of electricity in your brain Figure 6. 1. Andrew's CPI and knowledge transformation exemplars 6.2.2 Andrew's pre-visit knowledge and understandings 6.2.2.1 Andrew's initialun derstanding of magnets and magnetism Figure 6.1, Phase A, shows that Andrew held detailed understandings of the properties of magnets which included the fact that magnets could both attract (1. lA) and repel (1.2A); opposite polarities of magnets attract each other and like polarities repel (l.4A); and that metal could be magnetised by stroking with a magnet (1. lOA). Andrew, like a quarter of the students in the study, described magnets as having the property of having a negative charged end and a positive charged end to denote the differences in polarity (1.20A). Andrew was probed about the origins of his understandings of these characteristics of magnets. The following excerpt appears to point to his understanding being derived from childhood experiences with some sort of construction set: D Whereabouts did you get that idea? [Researcher points to concepts and link between "charge" and "magnetism" on Andrew's pre-visit concept map, Figure 6.2]. How did you know there was a positive and negative end to a magnet? A Well, we've got a lot of little magnets at home and I was sort of playing around and when I was littler, I made little Lego slot car things and put, um, positive to negative, but they weren't linked up to wires, so - sortof like - I don't know - silly idea - like a transportation system. Didn't use any other [connecting] link. But they use that on trains or did use that on trains and stuff. And trucks when they're carrying heavy goods and stuff just to make sure it doesn't slip off, didn't they? Don't they? D Use magnets? A Yeah, electromagnets to hold it on or something. D I'm not too sure. May have. A Well, I'm not sure about it, but yeah. This excerpt suggests that Andrew's experiences with electrically powered toy slot cars had helped him develop Concept 1.20A. The whole story for the development of this concept is not conveyed by the excerpt, however, some assertions made by Andrew provide insights about his associations of the terminology "positive" and "negative" with magnets. First, it was evident to Andrew that there was no direct physical connections between the slot cars and the track on which they moved, indicating to him that they may have been powered by 233 magnets. Second, there must have been some strong association with "positive" and "negative" connectors or power supply and magnetic forces for Andrew to have recounted this experience. It is conjectured by the researcher that Andrew may regard the propulsion of the slot car to be magnetic in nature and that notions of "positive" and "negative" are strongly associated with these slot car magnets. Andrew also understood that the Earth itself was a magnet (2.2A), and that compass needles were magnetised pieces of metal (2.7 A), which were attracted to the North Pole of the Earth (2. lA, 2.8A). Furthermore, Andrew held detailed understanding of the procedure by which a simple compass could be made by magnetising a pin and placing it in a cork floatingin a cup of water (2.6A) gained through a home-based scientific experiment facilitated by his mother. D I like this ... [Researcher point to the link between "compasses" and "magnetism" on Andrew's pre-visit concept map - Figure 6.2] Can you tell me how it was that you knew that compasses were magnetised? A Because when I was little at home I had - I was reading this book about electricity and magnetism we had, and after I'd - well, I was not reading it, I was too young then. But I was looking at the pictures, and I saw that they had a little cork with a needle, and my mum showed me how to do it. D She actually made it? A She cut the cork and showed me how to magnetise the needle and stuff. D She did it by stroking it with a magnet? A Yeah. And you put it in a cup and you point... D Excellent. Andrew also had a sound understanding of the application of electromagnets (2.5A) and the role of magnets within electric motors (2.3A), evident in his detailed knowledge of the operation of the ways in which the changing polarity of electromagnets caused motors to spin (2.14A, 2.1 5A). The following excerpt describes some of Andrew's detailed RLEs which helped develop his knowledge and understandings of motors and electromagnets. D Tell me how you knew about electric motors. A I found out about the electric motor because we had slot cars at home and I used to disassemble them. Like Jacob was - my brother - he was - he would pull them apart once they were broken, and I saw - he showed me the 234 electromagnet, and I also saw it in some books in the library here. And that's how I found out. D How does an electric motor work? A It's - it's a piece of a - a piece of a - some kind of - insulated, I think, with the wire, like an electromagnet aroundit, and it has the wire coming out - wound around and the wire comes out and it's (inaudible) and there's brushes that, urn,that, urn,make it - below it there's the two - two - one two magnets, and, urn, the electric - electricity goes through the brushes into it - into the - which makes it an electromagnet, which makes it - and it repels away from the true, urn, the true magnet, and then the charge - the current is blocked with the brushes somehow, and it turns and then it - the charge goes through and that's it keeps turning. D So it's all based on the fact that there's two magnets pushing one another? A Yes. 6.2.2.2 Andrew's initial understandings of electricity Andrew also possessed numerous and detailed understandings of the nature, characteristics, and applications of electricity included under fundamental categories 3.0A and 4.0A of Figure 6.1. He understood that electricity flows through wires (3.2A), and was constituted of a moving flowof electrons called a current (3.8A): D "Electrons travel in a current." [Researcher points to the concepts and links between "electrons" and "current" on Andrew's pre-visit concept map - Figure 6.2] How did you know that that was what electricity was and what a current was? A It's a charge orcurrent that moves through a conductor which is metal most of the time. It moves by electrons passing on the charge. I think the electrons move when the electricity's in it - in the wire, it sort of gets the electrons to move round a bit and they sort of bump each other and starts off like a chain reaction along the wire D How did you know that? A Partlyfrom the ABC [Australian Broadcasting Corporation - Television] shows and stuff, and my mum was telling me about it. Or somebody told me about it a while ago. (Inaudible) told me about that. Andrew understood the differences and properties of conducting and insulating materials (3.4A, 3.4B, 3. lOA, 3.12A), the SI units which described qualities pertaining to electricity (3.7A), and that multimeters measure the charge in your body (4.32A) D How did you know about those [SI] units? A My dad's got a multi-meter with all these - with the three. Yeah. I played around with that one day. D You did? 235 A Yeah. Measuring the charge in me and my dad and Chris, my brother. D Did you have charges in you? A Yeah,but not much. His understandings of electricity were partly inconsistent with the scientific view in that he regarded electricity as consisting of both a positive and negative charge (3.1SA). Andrew appeared to have appropriate cognitive links between the concepts of magnetism and electricity (3.3A). However, the role of electricity's production of magnetism described through the example of electromagnets emerged much more prominently in the initial discussion than did the production of electricity from magnetism. Andrew held understandings that lightning and static electricity were forms of electricity (4. 1A, 4.2A), and that lightning was a discharge of static electricity (4. lOA). Furthermore, his understandings of the storage and production of electricity included the fact that batteries stored electricity (4.3A) and that a dynamo was a device which could generate electricity (4.SA) D "Static electricity forms as lightning." [Researcher points to the link between "static electricity" and "lightning" on Andrew's pre-visit concept map - Figure 6.2]. How did you know that? A Well, I've watched a lot of those - when I was on holidays and stuff, I watched those ABC [television shows] - they have those educational stuff, when there was nothing else to do, I watched that. And that's how I learnt some of this stuff. D "Electricity discharging from a cloud - that's lightning" How did you know that? A Same [ABC - Television]. As will be discussed in the following sections, Andrew's initial knowledge and understandings of electricity and magnetism proved to be influential in the development of his subsequent understandings that emerged in Phases B and C. Figure 6.2, details Andrew's pre-visit RGCM depicting his understandings of the topics, and illustrating the interconnected nature of his knowledge. 236 Figure 6. 2. Andrew's pre-visit researcher-generated concept map. 6.2.3 Andrew's post-visit knowledge and understandings The concept mapping activity and probing interview conducted with Andrew following the visit to the Sciencentre revealed a number of changes in his knowledge of the topics being investigated in this study. Figure 6.1, Phase B, shows the conceptual changes identifiedfo llowing the Sciencentre visit as interpreted through the post-visit data sets. These changes were oftennot dramatic, in the sense of large scale conceptual development or change, but rather, incremental in nature and seen only for certain topics in magnetism and electricity. These identifiedchanges included: 1.11B Magnetising metal by stroking it with a magnet causes things in the metal to line up in the same direction; 2.3B Compasses point to the North and/or South Poles because the needle is magnetised; 2.6B Magnetic North is different from true North; 3.13B Electric current is electrons moving and bumping each other; 3.14B Two opposite charges pressing together will ''jump'' and produce a spark like in the Rising Arc exhibit; 4.3B Electricity is created by friction; 4.4B Generators generate electricity; 4.8B Both positive and negative change are needed to make electricity; 4.11B Batteries use chemicals to make electricity; and 4.22B The Hand Battery measures the current you are letting out of your body 6.2.3.1 The emergence ofpre-existing concepts Andrew appears to have constructed a number of concepts which have emerged out of the Phase B round of data collection which seem likely to have not been constructed directly from the Sciencentre experiences. The researcher suggests this since there were no identifiable experienceswithin the Sciencentre exhibits or programs which were directly related to certain concepts which emerged from the Phase B data collection. It was conjectured that these new concepts were pre existing and became more readily retrievable as a result of some combination of experiences, such as the Sciencentre, probing interview, concept mapping activities experience, and/or some other undisclosed experiences Andrew may have had since the Phase A data collection. In this sense, it was believed that subsequent 238 experiences helped to reveal existing knowledge. An example of this included his understanding that batteries use chemical reactions to make electricity (4. llB): D I notice this is a new term that you've got in your map [Researcherrefers to concepts and links between the terms "Battery" and "Chemicals" on Andrew's post-visit concept map shown in Figure 6.3] compared with your old one over here [referring to Andrew's pre-visit concept map shown in Figure 6.2]. A Yeah. D Ah, "chemicals." You didn't have chemicals in your old map. Tell me about this link here and how you came to know that chemicals can make electrical energy. A Yeah. D "Batteries use chemicals ..." A ...to make electricity." Well um ...um. I don't know. Ijust didn't remember it last time. Probably would have put it in, but - I sort of thought to put it in this time, so... D Okay. Do you remember where you learntthat? A Books. Yeah. Reading. Yeah. This particular knowledge transformation was deemed by the researcher to be termed "Emergence," and is featured on Andrew's CPI (Figure 6.1) as Transformation #1. Other pre-existing knowledge which appears to have emerged only in the second round of interviewing (Phase B) included: Concept 2.6B - Magnetic North is different from true North, and Concept 1.11B - Magnetising metal by stroking it with a magnet causes things in the metal to line up in the same direction. Concept 1.11B was one which may have been pre-existing but emerged in Phase B, as well as having been progressively differentiated in some way(s). The following excerpt from Andrew's post-visit interview suggest both of these knowledge transformation processes, represented by Transformation #2 [Emergence, P.D.] on Figure 6.1. D Metal can be magnetised [Researcher refers to post-visit concept map shown in Figure 6.3] . A Yeah. D "Uses ..." - you've sort of got that there in your previous concept map. A ...magnet. ..uses a magnet (writes) ...(mumbles) magnetise ...(Writes) ...magnetise a conductor. 239 D What about metals can be magnetised? Cause, I know you knew that from your last map. You told me how you could magnetise a piece of metal. How do you do it? A You run it across it and move it quickly away. D Move what across? A You move the magnet across the conductor so and then quickly away and all those go in the same direction. 6.2.3.2 Subtle changes in knowledge and understanding: Recontexualisation Andrew's knowledge transformations which were linked to the Sciencentre experiences were sometimes inconspicuous and subtle. Many of these identified changes were interpreted by the researcher as being forms of progressive differentiation. One such form, Transformation #3 [Recontextualisation], Figure 6.1, shows that Andrew's initial understandings of Concept 2.7A - Compass needles are magnetised and Concept 2.8A - Compass needles point North because they are magnetic, were recontextualised in terms of Concept 2.3B - Compasses point to the North and/or South poles because the needle is magnetised. In this instance, Andrew's understandings concerning the properties of a compass had not significantly changed, but rather, they were recontextualised in terms of the Sciencentre experiences at the exhibits that involved magnetic compasses. This was an example of knowledge and understandings which were identified and interpreted in previous phases being seen to be recontextualised in the light of other subsequent experiences. Often, the differences seen in these types of recontextualised concepts were subtle, but nonetheless transformations were considered as having taken place. Itcould be argued that recontexualisation of conceptual understandings is merely progressive differentiation. However, its identification as a "separate" process seemed to stand out in terms of there being no appreciable change in the individual's understandings of the related concepts underpinning the recontexualisation of ideas. 6.2.3.3 Distinct changes in knowledge and understanding: Progressive differentiation Other, more obvious forms of progressive differentiation could be seen in terms of Transformation #4 and #5, Figure 6.1. Transformation #4 [P.D., 240 Recontextalisation] describes changes in Andrew's understandings of how dynamos and generators produce electricity. Analysis of the pre-visit data sets indicated that Andrew held Concept 4.8A - A dynamo turns turbines to generate electricity. It was also clear that he held detailed understandings of the operation of motors and the role of magnets in the mechanical processes, as exemplified by his discussion of disassembling slot cars with his brother Jacob (Section 6.2.2.1). Concept 4.8A was classified as being procedural knowledge (Section 5.3.4, Table 5.4) in that Andrew understood something of the basic process, but did not understand the scientific principle of the induction process of electricity generation. Post-visit Interview D Ever heard of the term "generator" at all? A Generator, yep. D How do they work, do you know? A Well, it works like a dynamo. The fuel is burnt - not - like pistons, I think, which turns- the pistons are pushed by the explosions and the arm goes up which turnsthe rod which is connected to the dynamo which creates electricity. D Okay. A I don't know how it creates electricity. D Mmm. But there's something moving which makes it... A Yeah...... 1'm not sure. The understanding that dynamos were devices that produce electricity appeared to be further developed by Andrew's RLE at the live, facilitator-led, science demonstration which followed students' free-choice interaction at the exhibits, as well as with his interactions at the Electric Generator exhibit (Appendix E). Analysis of the post-visit data sets indicated that Andrew had developed Concept 4.4B - Generators generate electricity, from these experiences. Andrew's post-visit interview showed that he described his understandings of generators and dynamos in a much more explicit way than presented in his initial interview. Post-visit Interview D Okay. Some of those exhibits there at the Sciencentre had generators and dynamos, you've got here "Dynamos make electricity" and "Dynamos use magnets to makeelectricity" [Researcher points to concepts and links on 241 Andrew's post-visit concept map, Figure 6.3]. That's different from your other [pre-visit] map. A Yeah. D You've got "dynamos make electricity." How does that happen? A Well, when you throw [turn] the handle, it moves the magnets around a coil of wire. Well, the guy on the - at the urn- the display thing [Sciencentre facilitator]. .. in the urn- in the sort of the ... D In the [live] science show? A In the show, yeah. He [the demonstrator] put it like that they start moving around because of their magnets, and they start moving on to an electric current, but not very big. D Okay. So making electricity's got something to do with magnets. A Yeah... like that.. [Generators] uses magnets to make electricity. D I remember from when we last talked you knew a bit about that before you went to the Sciencentre, didn't you? A Yeah. D From pulling slot cars to bits and from ... A Yes, stuff like that, yeah. Just stuff. [Andrew Laughs] In the final interview with Andrew, he recounts RLEs which add some further insight into his developing understanding of generators. Andrew reveals that his understandings of generators were transformed from concepts which simply viewed that they were capable of producing electricity to concepts which appreciated something of their operation, following his Sciencentre experiences. Post-Activity Interview D I'd like to just take you through an exercise where you describe to me how you think your knowledge has changed as a result of these interventions. Let's start with these two maps [Figures 6.2 and 6.3]. A Well, before we went to the centre, yeah, I didn't really know that much about the um... the - urn, the ...the - I've forgotten the word ..., the urndynamo sort of thing. D Generators? A Generator, yeah, because after we went to the Sciencentre, I turned that handle on their generator and saw that show. D You didn't have dynamo in but you had it here [on your firstma p], [referring to concept map shown in Figure 6.2] . So did you pick that up from the Sciencentre? A Yep. D From that generator electricity exhibit? A Yeah. D You didn't know anything about that before? 242 A Not much, no. I knew that dynamos made electricity, [but] I wasn't sure how they did it. Transformation #4 indicated that both progressive differentiation of knowledge had occurred as a result of the Sciencentre experiences, but also as a part of this process Andrew had recontextualised his earlier understandings of the process. 6.2.3.4 Development of personal theories about electricity New among Andrew's understandings were views about electricity which indicated that Andrew was developing personal theories of electricity production and the nature of electricity. Evidence for this development was identified through Concepts 4.8B, 3.14B, 3.13B, and 4.2IB. For example, Andrew's experiences with the Rising Arc exhibit (Appendix E) appear to have caused him to integrate his understanding of repulsion and attraction of magnets (1.IA, 1.2A, I.4A, 1.20A), electric charge (3.18A), and his "motion of electrons" model (3. 13B): D You've got some ideas which you've been telling me about - repulsion and attraction. How's that all fitin with this? Tell me about the instances where you have attraction? A When there's two opposite charges. D Okay. Together. Do you mean magnets or electricity or both? A Magnets, yeah. And electricity if there's two opposite charges pressing up together they'll jump sort of and makea spark. Like in that Rising Arc thing. Andrew appears to believe that like charges pressed together against their natural tendency to repel each other, will eventually result in a sudden release of energy in the form of a spark. This theory is exemplifiedin his personal explanation of the Rising Arc exhibit, and provides some insight into Andrew's personal explanation for why electrical sparks are produced. This development of understanding is represented in part by Transformation #5 (P.D., Personal Theory Building (P.T.B.)). 243 A further example of Andrew's development of personal theories of electricity can be seen in the development of Concept 4.21B through Transformation #6a [P.D., Recontextualisation]. In this instance, Andrew's interactions with the Hand Battery exhibit (Appendix E) had caused him to recontextualise and progressively differentiate his ideas about the fact that the exhibit actually measures the amount of electricity in one's own body. Section 6.2.2.2 detailed an excerpt from Andrew's pre-visit interview in which he recounts a RLE where he had measured a small amount electrical charge in his family members' bodies using his father's multimeter. The following excerpt was from a part of the post-visit interview where the researcher showed a picture of the Hand Batteryexhi bit: A Oh, they're the hand batteries. That was ... D What happened there? A Urn, you put your hands on the pieces of metal and the - the electric current - the magnetic current in you registered on the multimeter thing. D Right. The current within you? A Yeah. It seems apparent that Andrew's initial Concept 4.32A has been transformed to develop Concept 4.21B. This concept was later progressively differentiated and constituted an expanded personal theory of the explanation of the operation of the exhibit, and will be discussed in Section 6.2.4.1 Figure 6.3, details Andrew's post-visit RGCM and depicts his understandings of the topics, illustrating the interconnected nature of his knowledge. 244 ? lo ""use M4V#;iU:; n � -. �-. // mognoIlS_ -" �S,<-� -"'"�-� ��.;,: :>:�:. f a beIng__ -"" - to_� aIeO!IICIly .-rnagnelS CompaSS:�ad&$ are 10_ mogool!Soop;<'" Of -lIICIly .- >:lW'�C� RlPfu ...... AIlfi,d ...... ' .� .' "". .' � . , / Figure 6. 3. Andrew's post-visitresearcher-generated concept map. do··' � " . 6.2.4 Andrew's post-activity knowledge and understandings The concept mapping activity and probing interview conducted with Andrew following his PVA experiences also revealed a number of changes in his knowledge of the topics. Figure 6.1, Phase C, shows the conceptual changes identifiedand interpreted through the post-visit data sets. These changes included: 1.lC Magnets can create electricity; l.3C Magnets cause electrons to move inside the wire of a solenoid which produced the electricity; lAC Magnetic forces can pass through solid materials; 1.SC Electromagnets cease to be magnets when the electricity is switched off; 1.8C The iron core of the electromagnet seems to remain magnetic for a little while afterthe electricity is switched off; 3.lC Electricity can create magnetism; 3.SC Electrons need a magnetic force to make them travel; 3.l4C The + and - of electricity are the same as the + and - of magnets; 4.1 C Electricity is produced by waving a magnet in front of a coil of wire; 4AC The faster you move a magnet in front of a coil the more electricity it will produce; 4.l8C Your brain uses electricity to tell you what to do; 4.l9C A transformer will short itself out if it detects a short circuit; 4.20C Magnetic forces cause electrons to move in the coil of wire which produces an electric current; and 4.26C The Hand Batteryexhibit measured the amount of electricity in your brain. 6.2.4.1 Further examples of progressive differentiation: Personal theorybu ilding The operation of the Hand Battery Andrew also further refined his interpretation of the operation of the hand battery exhibit in the time interval time between the post-visit and post-activity interview as illustrated by Transformation #6b [P.D., P.T.B.]. Through a RLE of reading a science text book in preparation for his personally selected school science project, he continued to view the Hand Batteryas a device which measured electricity in the body, but now asserted that it specifically measures electricity 246 produced in the brain. The following excerpt from Andrew's post-activity interview illustrated how his understanding developed. D You've got this relation here between electricity and the brain [referring to concept map shown in Figure 6.4]. I don't think that's on any other maps. A No. D That's new. Tell me about that. A Well, when I was looking for something for my science project which we're doing soon, I saw something about - to do with that copper plate and aluminium plate that's measuring the current... D At the science centre? A Yeah,in the science centre. Well, I sort of got the explanation for that from one of those science experiment books. D and what is the explanation? A Well, your brain sends a very small electric current along your nervous system to tell your body what to do, and yeah. D So how's that relate to that experiment at the centre? A And then, urn, theelectricity that it's sending it jumps to the aluminium and copper plates and then it's measured on the multimeter. Transformations #6a and #6b demonstrate how Andrew's knowledge had undergone multiple transformation processes, each transformation developing and changing in the light of previous concepts. Personal theory of induction Transformations #7a [P.D., Emergence] and #7b [P.D., P.T.B.] also describe how Andrew's knowledge had undergone multiple transformation processes, each transformation developing and changing in the light of previous concepts resulting in a personal theory of the induction process. In these knowledge transformations, Andrew's initial understanding of current, Concept 3.SA, was partly emergent, and partly progressively differentiated in Phase B in the form of Concept 3.13B - Electric current is electrons moving and bumping each other. Through Andrew's PVA experiences with the induction process, he developed several related ideas, which, for him, provided a cohesive explanation for the production of electricity. Specifically, Concepts 1.3C - Magnets cause electrons to move inside the wire of a solenoid which produced the electricity, 3.5C - Electrons need a magnetic force to 247 make them travel, 4.1 C - Electricity is produced by waving a magnet in front of a coil of wire, 4.4C - The faster you move a magnet in front of a coil the more electricity it will produce, and 4.21 C - Magnetic forces cause electrons to move in the coil of wire which produces an electric current. The following excerpt from Andrew's post-activity interview illustrates part of these transformation processes: D Tell me the actual details of the process of how you made the electricity in that experiment? A Well, you got the coil; put the core - the rod iron ore, through the middle of it. You connected it to the multimeter [microammeter]; put the bar magnet and moved it up and down near the coil which makes the little [electrical] current. D What was your understanding of how moving the magnet actually did that? A It [the magnet] sort of moved the electrons around, like they're moving (inaudible word) the current round, and moving----- D Okay. So the magnet. Moving the magnet. A Yeah. Moved electrons in the copper coil. D And they made electricity. A Yeah. D And you did the part of the experiment where you just put the magnet still? And what happened? A Yeah,and that didn't make any [electricity]. D Why is that? A Because it's not moving - the magnet's not moving so it can't move the electrons in it, so it sort of ... D And you did the bit where you moved it slow then fast? A Yeah. Slowly it made almost nothing, and fast it made more - a lot more. 6.2.4.2 Development of links between the concepts of electricity and magnetism The round of concept mapping and interviewing following the PV As provided evidence that Andrew had transformed his knowledge of the ways, and processes by which the production of electricity and magnetism were linked. It was evident that the conceptual links between the two concept domains were more evident and integrated. The knowledge transformation processes which describe these developments are complicated and difficult to identify. However, the researcher speculated that these changes may be illustrated by Transformation #8 and include the processes of addition, reorganisation, and progressive differentiation. 248 Evidence for these changes is seen on Andrew's post-activity concept map (Figure 6.4). Here, Andrew has included two links between the concepts of electricity and magnetism showing their mutual production of each other. These concepts were not noted on either of the two previous concepts maps (Figure 6.2 and 6.3). In addition, the following excerpt from Andrew' s finalinterview provides evidence for the identifiedchange s. D Now after post-visit activities you're saying here [on your concept map], [Researcher referring to concept map shown in Figure 6.4) about "electricity can make magnetism", and "magnetism can make electricity". Where'd you get that idea? A Well, from experiments we did. The copper coil and making the electromagnet and the - and the makingelectricity [activity]. And I also knew a bit about that before and yeah. Sort of didn't put much about the magnet can make electricity [on my firstconcept map], [because] I didn't know much then. 6.2.4.3 Knowledge transformation fr om the PVA experiences Andrew also developed new understandings of the properties of electromagnets illustrated by Transformation #9 [P.D.] which included Concepts l.4C Electromagnets cease to be magnets when the electricity is switched off, and 1.8C The iron core of the electromagnet seems to remain magnetic for a little while after the electricity is switched off. Other transformations include the emergence of Concept 1.5C (Transformation # 10) and the addition of Concept 4.2lC (Transformation #11). These transformations were observations made directly through the experience of the PV As. Figure 6.4, presents Andrew's post-activity RGCM and depicts his understandings of the topics, illustrating the interconnected nature of his knowledge. 249 !--__«rea' � � .mt1�repclW'"d" M'f1j� ,,,,,cl ...... - l� l&.dlstMrge "'-- EIeetOOity I th«:'>tIgh8 conductor -- ...-®. ' .. " . . " . AlI..-. . . ..: » .: " - . ;:3:• .�" .. v .. t �t\..· �!... ;.,l.i?... .. \/. """'{tIl< . , . Figure 6.4. Andrew's post-activity researcher-generated concept map. 6.2.5 Summary of Andrew's knowledge construction It is evident from the analysis of the data sets that Andrew had gained more detailed understandings of the topics of electricity and magnetism resulting from the visit to the Sciencentre, PVA, and other subsequent experiences. These understandings, though sometimes alternative with respect to the accepted scientific view, demonstrate the development of Andrew's knowledge in the direction of more detail, integration and greater coherence. Summarising Andrew's changes in understandings, it appears that his interactions with the Electric Generator exhibit and participationin the live science show helped him develop further his understandings of the operation of dynamos. Andrew was also seen to develop a detailed coherent theory which could explain the induction process which was also consistent with the scientific explanation fromthe PV A experiences, and as a result, developed furtherunderstandings of the links between magnetism and electricity. Other experiences at the Sciencentre resulted in Andrew constructing knowledge which was clearly alternative with respect to the accepted scientificviews of science. Specifically, Andrew developed understanding which led him to believe that the Hand Batterywas a device which measured the amount of electricity in the human brain, and a personal explanation for the production of the spark in the Rising Arc exhibit. Perhaps most powerfully demonstrated by the case study of Andrew, was the influenceof his prior understandings upon subsequent knowledge development. In numerous cases, concepts previously held, influencedknowledge constructed from his Sciencentre experiences, and these newly developed understandings further influencedthe development of his understandings that emerged fromhi s PVA experience. 251 Andrew's knowledge was seen to change in both subtle and distinct ways. Sometimes Andrew's pre-existing understandings were seen to emerge only in later rounds of data collection. In these instances, it was hypothesised that some combination of the Sciencentre, probing interview, and concept mapping activities, in addition to perhaps other undisclosed experiences, assisted Andrew to retrieve additional pre-existing knowledge not revealed at the stage of the initial interview. On occasions, Andrew's knowledge was seen to be recontextualised in the light of later experience, without detectable changes in his understanding of scientific principles. At the other extreme, some of his understandings appeared to have progressively differentiated substantially and resulted in the construction of a personal theory to account for his experiences. In these instances, the development of personal theory oftenappeared to result from a complicated, and at times, non discernable set of knowledge transformations. These transformations could at times be traced across all three phases of the study. Consistent with the Novakian view of knowledge construction (Section 2.4.2.5), these developments were sometimes seen to be incremental in nature, such as the development of his personal theory for the operation of the Hand Battery. On other occasions, Andrew seemed to have made considerable changes to his knowledge and understandings, such as the development of his personal theories of induction. 252 6.3 The Case Study of J osie 6.3.1 Josie's background and characteristics Josie was a keen student, and regarded by both her teacher and the researcher as being a very open communicator who was eager to please and participate in the research study. The following excerpt from her teacher's interview describes her communication style, personality traits, and orientation toward the school curriculum. Josie is a delightful, eager to please student. She's often nervous or hesitant about work, not liking to commit herself unless certain that she is correct. In that sense, she's got a bit of a perfectionist streakin her personality. I think J osie is a student who possesses good, clear communication skills, both oral and written, and demonstrates excellent application to tasks set before her. She is probably stronger in languageareas of the school curriculum, rather than in maths or science. The researcher's views of Josie, gained during the course of the data collection, were for the most part consistent with those expressed by her teacher. However, Josie was found not to be nervous or hesitant during the data collection activities, and only appeared to have difficultly in committing herself to expressed scientific opinions relating to the Sciencentre and PV A experiences in Phase C of the study. Josie, like most other students in the study, expressed some views which were clearly alternative to the accepted scientific view. However, she was at times able to support and rationalise these views and describe the RLEs which helped her develop these understandings. Figure 6.5 details Josie's CPI and some of her identifiedknowledge transformations interpreted by the researcher. Throughout the following discussion of Josie's pre-visit knowledge and understandings, selected excerpts from her pre visit interview will illustrate and exemplify some of the experiences from which J osie claimed her understandings originated. 253 1.0A Properties of Magnets 1.1A Magnets can attract ------.-----_ 1.5A Magnets are made of metal 1.6A Magnets stick to refrigerators 1.12A Magnets have a field 1.13A Big magnets are stronger than small magnets 1.17A Magnets use/produce power Alternate views 1.20A Magnets have positive and negative ends 1.22A A positive and negative piece of metal are required to make a magnet ------+-----____ 1.24A Thermometers use magnets to measure temperature ------_ 2.0A Earth's Magnetic Field, Compasses, and Application of Magnets CC 2.2A Earth has a magnetic field G) Alternate views :Q 2.16A The North pole of the Earth has a magnet in it ..s:::: c.. 3.0A Properties of Electricity 3.1A Electricity makes things work! Powers electrical appliances and lights ?> 3.2A Electricity flows through wires ::::;: 3.6A Electricity can kill you / Electrocute you <1> '" -;0 ,... 3.23A Electricity connects things like lights and phones <1> => :u Alternate views 5· � 3.28A Electricity needs/uses forces <0 r 4.0A Types of Electricity, Electricity Production, and Applications of Electricity 4.1 A Lightning is a form of electricity 4.2A Static Electricity is a form of electricity 4.3A Batteries make and/or store electricity 4.4A Static electricity can be produced by rubbing a balloon with a cloth and/or combing your hair 1.08 Properties of Magnets 1.1 B Magnet can ruin TVs 1.2B Magnets make electricity 1.4B Metal can be magnetised ------r.4l..tA\;:diddiiiiri;;lo;;;nl-----+--+--+_-+--1----. 1.5B Hot metal will not stick to a magnet ------� 1. Magnets do attract copper - -+-..... 6B not :> 1.7B Magnets attract only certain types of metal ------+-_____ Cl. !" � "1J 1.8B Magnets are needed to make an electric motor o· m 1.14B Magnetism can pass through solid materials =------.fss .:-"iE8m;;;;;;e;;rg;;;e;;;n;;;c;;;]e .=> � l I "1J G) .b :Q 2.08 Earth's Magnetic Field, Compasses, and Application of Magnets - £f 2.2B Compasses point toward magnets 3.0B Properties of Electricity 4.08 Types of Electricity, Electricity Production, and Applications of Electricity 4.2B Static electricity is produced when you rub a balloon or comb you hair ------'1-----41 4.6B The Hand Battery can produce electricity 4.7B Connecting dissimilar metals can produce electricity ----'-I-.fii5.�A�drltdiiitH.io:;;nJ.------l----.... 4. 15B Stalic electricity can make lightning Properties of Magnets 1.2C Electromagnets are made by passing electricity through a coil of wire containing an iron core 1.15C Positive and negative magnets do not attract each other 1.16C Thermometers use magnetism to measure heat 1 1.OC ------41 � � P � () 2.0C Earth's Magnetic Field, Compasses, and Application of Magnets "1J � G) � s:: <1> :Q 3.0C Properties of Electricity "1J � cO £f 3.1 C Electricity can create magnetism � tJJ 4.0C Types of Electricity, Electricity Production, and Application of Electricity 4.1 C Electricity is produced by waving a magnet in front of a coil of wire 4.2C Ammeters/meters measure electricity Alternate Views 1 4.21 C Dissimilar metals were in part responsible for the production of electricity in the PVA Figure 6. 5. Josie's CPI and knowledge transformation exemplars. 6.3.2 Josie's pre-visit knowledge and understandings 6.3.2.1 Josie's initialund erstandings of magnets and magnetism Josie held a number of concepts and understandings about the topics of magnetism and electricity at the outset of the study, as detailed in Figure 6.5, Phase A. Her initial understandings of magnets included both correct and alternative views. Josie believed that magnets could attract (1.IA), were able stick to refrigerators (1.6A), and were made from metal (1.5A). Furthermore, she regarded that big magnets were stronger than small magnets (1.13A), magnets had a magnetic field (1.12A), and magnets sometimes used power (electromagnets) (1.17 A). Among her alternative conceptions of magnets and magnetism, Josie viewed magnets as being in two forms, positive magnets and negative magnets, each composed of a different type of metal. Consequently she did not view a magnet as being one piece of metal containing both positive and negative forms, but rather considered a negative magnet to be homogeneously negative and, likewise, a positive magnet to be homogeneously positive (1.20A, 1.22A). Josie was also uncertain about the ability of magnets to attract only certain types of metals. These views were exemplifiedby the following quotes from the initial interview with Josie. D Josie, pretend that there's an alien which comes down from outer space, who has never heard or seen a magnet before, and it comes up to you and says ... "tell me what a magnet is." What do you say to it? J Urn, well, a magnet is when we have a negative and a positive, urn, two different types of metal, one is negative and one is positive and when you put them together they makemagnetic fields and forces. D Let's look at your concept map [Researcher refers to Josie's pre-visit concept map shown in Figure 6.6]. .. Mmm, urn"magnetism" and "metal", what's that link there? J Urnmetal is like you need two different types of metal to make magnetism, magnet. D Two different types? J Yep. D Okay, tell me a bit more about that? J Well, there's positive and negative, and they're magnets but they're a type of metal and that's what makes magnetism. 255 D Mmm, so you get a positive piece of metal and a negative piece of metal and join them together and it makes a magnet? J No, they're both already magnets. D Oh I see. J And you put them together and it makes this, urn, Ithink the magnet though is a type of metal. D Mmm, okay, now do magnets attract metal? J Yes. D They do? J If you have a magnet and you have paper clips say, then they attract it depending on what type of metal the paper clip is or the magnet. D Mmm, do magnets attract all sorts of metal? J Urnjus t, I'm not sure. Although a quarter of students in the study used the nomenclature "positive" and "negative" to denote "North" and "South" poles of magnets, J osie' s model of the nature of positive and negative magnets was unique among these students. Also unique was Josie's association of magnetism and mercury column thermometers. J osie was of the view that the bead of mercury within a mercury in a glass thermometer was a magnet and moved in response to magnetic forces (1.24A). J ... a thermometer uses the magnets to find out the heat and temperature and then heat is, or to measure the heat by using a thermometer and then magnetism uses forces. D Okay, tell me about the "thermometer" and "magnetism"; tell me how magnetism is used to measure temperature? J Urnwell I think the thing is out of the thermometer is a magnet and urnif the magnet goes up or down then it tells you where the heat, like if it's hot or cold or it tells you the temperature. D Okay you're talking about electronic, urn, thermometer or just one of those thermometers that has a little reservoir of mercury down the bottom? J Urn, the one that has the mercury. D Right, okay, how did you know that? J Cause, urn, myMum' s a nurse and we have heaps of them, thermometers at home. D Oh right. J And that's what I figured, that it had magnetism. D Right, okay, so no one told you, you just figured that out yourself? J Yep. 256 The exact details of the RLEs, which caused Josie to build such understandings of the theory of the operation of mercury thermometers, were not known. Regardless of the fact that these views were alternative and inconsistent with the canons of science, she had constructed these understandings herself, and through her own experiences of thermometers in her own home environment. Josie appeared also to possess understandings of the magnetic character of the Earth. She seemed aware that the Earth had some kind of magnetic field (2.2A), but explained the reason for compasses pointing North in terms of the partially alternative notion of there being a big magnet located at the Earth's North pole (2.16A) 6.3.2.2 Josie 's initial understandings of electricity Josie's understandings of electricity included: Static electricity is a form of electricity (4.2A); static electricity could be produced when hair is combed or when a woolen jumper is removed (4.4A); lightning is a form of electricity (4.IA); electricity helps things, such as electrical appliances, to work (3.IA); electricity connects things like phones and lights (3.23A); electricity flows through wires (3.2A); batteries store electricity (4.3A); and electricity can electrocute people and cause death (3.6A). Interestingly, Josie appears to have some strong associations between her concepts of "force" and its application to "electricity"; Concept 3.28A Electricity needs or uses force: D Okay, now you say here, electricity needs/uses forces [Researcher refers to Josie's link between the concepts of "electricity" and "force" on her pre-visit concept map, Figure 6.6] J Yep. D Tell me about that? J Well electricity has a force in it like the phone line, you can't sort of do it without having forces. D Mmm, so you can't, let's use the example of let's say the electric fan, plug in the electric fan, how does the force work there? J Urnwell you have to turn the fan on. D Mmm. J And I think that, urn, to turn the fan on, you have to have electricity and you have to have some type of force to turn,urn, the fan on by using electricity. 257 D Mmm, now this force that electricity uses, is that same sort of force as magnetism? J Urn, I'm not sure. Absent from Josie's understanding were concepts and connections which appropriately linked magnetism and electricity in terms of their mutual production. Josie's pre-visit RGCM (Figure 6.6) depicts her understandings of the topics, illustrating the interconnected nature of her knowledge. 6.3.3 Josie's post-visit knowledge and understandings Following the visit to the Sciencentre a number of changes in Josie's knowledge and understanding of electricity and magnetism were detected and interpreted by the researcher. The change represented in Figure 6.5, Phase B. These included new or changed concepts such as: l.IB - Magnets can ruin TVs; l.2B - Magnets make electricity; lAB - Metal can be magnetised; l.5B - Hot metal will not stick to a magnet; l.6B - Magnets do not attract copper ; l.7B - Magnets attract only certain types of metal; l.8B - Magnets are needed to make an electric motor; l.14B Magnetism can pass through solid materials; 2.2B - Compasses point toward magnets; 4.2B - Static electricity is produced when you rub a balloon or comb your hair; 4.6B - The Hand Batterycan produce electricity; 4.7B - Connecting dissimilar metals can produce electricity; and 4.15B - Static electricity can make lightning. 258 · · ··· are need to make · Wlres · . ' , ... etectOOtywires . .� b1atic Eieo\rjcity is a need is need to make CID fOOl] of electricity � Metal isWhat makes � magneI$ or hasmagneI$ on a Are_make magnetism use magnetismto find out the heat (temperature) BIg magnets are � strooger tllansmaH . ' ::: :Ci';>. ;:\ :: . magneI$ , " ' . . ' '''.':" . . ... measure Heat �.... (Temperature) Figure 6. 6. Josie's pre-visit rresearcher-generated concept map. It was evident that, in many instances, new understandings could be linked to experiences Josie had during her visit to the Sciencentre and also to her previously identifiedunderstand ings in Phase A. For example, her newly developed understanding that magnets attract only certain types of metals was developed from experiences she had at the Magnetic Materials exhibit. Similarly, Josie's understandings of the ability of magnets to affect a television detrimentally was derived from herexperiences at the Magnet and TVexhibit which allowed visitors to observe the effect of placing a magnet near a television screen. J osie' s experience at the Hand Battery,an exhibit element which produced electricity by the visitor touching copper and aluminium plates, helped her construct knowledge which correctly incorporated the electricity-producing effects of connecting dissimilar metals together. This particular understanding was probably reinforced by a demonstrator-facilitated experience of two dissimilarmetal s, zinc and copper, being connected to an ammeter to demonstrate the production of electricity as part of a live science show at the Sciencentre. The following sections describe these new understandings and identifythe knowledge transformation processes which caused them to form. 6.3.3.1 Differentiation of knowledge and understanding of the properties of magnets Josie's knowledge could, at times, be seen to change in ways which could be linked with knowledge and understandings expressed in previous phases of the study. For example, Transformation #1 [P.D.] (Figure 6.5) shows Josie's understanding that Concept 1.lA - Magnets can attract has developed the added condition that Concept 1.6B - Magnets do not attract copper. Furthermore, Concept 1.1A may also be regardedas progressively differentiated in terms of Concept 1.7B - Magnets only attract certain types of metal. These conditions for Concept 1.lA were developed from her experiences with an exhibit called Magnetic Materials. This exhibit allowed visitors to determine the types of metallic materials which were attracted to magnets, by moving a barmagnet close to some samples of various metallic substances and the observation of movement (or lack of movement) of the 260 materials. This kind of knowledge transformation is an example of progressive differentiation (Ausubel et aI., 1978; Rumelhart & Norman, 1978). The processes of progressive differentiation often subsume the processes of addition described previously. In essence, progressive differentiation involves the transformation of some previously existing concept in some way. 6.3.3.2 Developing understandings of the production of electricity: Progressive differentiation of ideas Also further developed were J osie' s understandings of the production of static electricity, as depicted by Transformation #2 [Addition, P.D.]. Here, the demonstrator showed several techniques for producing static electricity, such as rubbing a balloon with a cloth, rubbing a glass rod with fur, and demonstrating the operation of a Van de Graaff generator. Several students were invited to participate in a number of classical physics experiments using the generator, including touching it to make their hair stand on end. As evidenced by the changes on her post-visit concept map, these experiences had helped transform Josie's knowledge resulting in more developed understandings of the production of static electricity and its characteristics A comparison of Josie's pre-visit and post-visit interview transcripts illustrates some changes in her knowledge of the topic. Pre-Visit Interview D Ever heard of static electricity? J Yeah that's when you rub something to your hair or a jumper or something and then like if you did it to your hair, then the hair would all stick up. D Mmm, have you done that? J Yep. D Yeah,with a comb or something? J Hairbr ush. Post-visit Interview D This idea about the balloons and the static electricity, where did you get that idea from? J Well, when he rubbed the balloon to his hair ... 261 D This was in the show? J Yeah, and then he could put it on the wall. And he like - the balloon and the hair, that's what makes static electricity. D So your understanding of what static electricity was, was unchanged as a result of visiting the Science Centre? J No, I say it was changed because, urn, I didn't really know about that thing where you turn on the switch and then it attracted like by putting his hand on it, on the Van de Graaff thing, urn,his [the demonstrator's] hair would stick up. Furthermore, a comparison of Josie's pre- and post-visit concept maps (Figures 6.6 and 6.7) illustrates the development of concepts pertaining to the production of static electricity. Josie's post-visit map includes five concept nodes and multiple conceptual links (located in the lower right hand corner of the diagram) which were not present in her pre-visit concept map. This cluster of concepts nodes was linked to a larger concept set through the concept of "lightning" (Concept 4.1SB - Static electricity can make lightning). This particular link also suggests that there has been a further progressive differentiation of ideas represented by Transformation #3 [P.D.] on Figure 6.5. 6.3.3.3 Th e addition of declarative understandings During the course of the post-visit interview, it became evident that Josie had discussed her Sciencentre experiences with her father. In the following excerpt, Josie declares that magnetism is able to produce electricity. D Now, let's have a talk about some of these here. You've got "Magnets can wreck television." [Researcher refers to the link between "magnets" and "TV" on Josie's post-visit concept map, Figure 6.7]. How did you know that? J Oh, cause, um .. .I asked Dad after that thing, and I found also that electricity and magnetism make electricity. Dad told me. And----- D He told you. J Yeah. (Laughs.) And - well, it was something like that but I can't remember all the words, so Ijust sort of - I don't know. And---- D Was that after you visited the Sciencentre? J Yeah. D Okay, now, tell me a bit more about this magnetism and making electricity. How does it actually do that? 262 J Urn, I'm not terribly sure, but it's just like - (inaudible word) magnets make electricity. D Can you think of an example of an experiment that you've seen or an exhibit that you saw where this actually happened? Somebody doing it? J Urn, that one where (inaudible word) thing went around and you put two magnets on it. I'm not sure if that was using electricity - the thing in the middle. Um ...l' m not sure. It seems evident that Josie had no in-depth understandings of the processes by which magnets can make electricity, other that this was a declarative fa ct gleaned from a discussion with her father. Thus, Concept 1.2B - Magnets make electricity, was considered to be declarative knowledge and was merely a fact which was poorly integrated into Josie's overall knowledge and understandings of electricity and magnetism, and is represented by Transformation #4 [Addition] on Figure 6.5. Also seen as additional knowledge transformations were Concepts 4.6B - The Hand Batteryca n produce electricity, and 4.7B - Connecting dissimilar metals can produce electricity. It was the view of the researcher that these declarative knowledge concepts were added to Josie's understandings through her experiences with the Hand Batteryexhibit and are represented by Transformation #5 [Addition]. 6. 6. 3.4 Emergence of previously held concepts Josie, like other students in the study, appeared to have concepts which seem likely to have not been constructed directly from the Sciencentre experiences, for example, Concept 1.14 - Magnetism can pass through solid materials (Transformation #6 - Emergence). Like the case study of Andrew (Section 6.2.3.1), it was conjectured that these new concepts were pre-existing and became more readily retrievable as a result of some combination of experiences, such as the Sciencentre, probing interview, concept mapping activities experience, and/or some other undisclosed experiences Josie may have had since the Phase A data collection. Josie's post-visit RGCM, Figure 6.7, details her knowledge as represented following the Sciencentre visit. 263 fW".'J n;"q,l'ds {,) ."'�w�",l,"'U is a dIfferefrttype can �S$ through i'"\almH'K';�- ...... M"'''�.,..; ��'*� u.mg_lypelIoI .'. _. .. '''''' 90Il10...... C E.:)-. CE.:)-. ' ... .:'....' . _ .. Il10 '''''911<11 . . . . . MOljI\ Mete! GM!>erHlJ.giotiised �/¥..... �. ... moI«> �- -- �. .. � ------{ /�_n« used ' ' . . ori � .- -®. " otand,"�...... Figure 6.7. Josie's post-visit researcher-generated concept map. 6.3.4 Josie's post-activity knowledge and understandings Probing Josie's knowledge following the PVA experiences revealed a small number of changes in knowledge and understanding in comparison with other students' knowledge transformations. These included: Electromagnets are made by passing electricity through a coil of wire containing an iron core (1.2C); Magnetic forces can pass through solid materials (1.5C), a view which was emergent at the post-visit data collation phase, but now appeared more firmlyhe ld; Positive and negative magnets do not attract each other (1.15C); Thermometers use magnetism to measure heat (1.16C); Electricity can create magnetism (3.1C); Electricity is produced by waving a magnet in front of a coil of wire (4.1 C); Ammeters/meters measure electricity (4.2C); and Dissimilar metals were, in part, responsible for the production of electricity in the PV A (4.21 C). Many of these identified concepts and concept changes were interpreted by the researcher to be small and incremental in nature, comprised weak restructuring of knowledge and little progressive differentiation and personal theory building. These interpretations will be discussed further in the following sections. 6.3.4.1 Disassociation of a prior construction An interesting and unanticipated outcome emerged from the post-activity interview with Josie, during which she described her change in understanding from a concept(s) she held earlier, but now no longer accepted as being correct. Specifically, Josie no longer believed that magnets were able to attract each other. A comparison of her initial and post-visit knowledge showed that Josie's knowledge had undergone a disassociation transformation, illustrated in Figure 6.5 as Transformation #7 [Disassociation]. D Okay, let's have a look at some of the differences and similarities between your mind maps. I want you to try and think about how your knowledge changed, how your understanding about electricity and magnetism changed and tell me a couple of little stories. 265 J Well ..., I figured that negative and positive actually, they don't want to go together. D Mmm. J And then I was saying here that they're opposite but I didn't know that they like ..., I thought like if you put like a brick or something there and then you put positive and negative they'd want to like, urn, attract, but they don't and I figured that out. D Alright, so explain to me once again what you mean by this, you say negative and positive are opposites and positive is a different type of magnet and negative is a different type of magnet, so we've got positive magnets and negative magnets, is that right? J Yep and they don't want to attract, I thought that they did want to, like, because they were two different types they would want to go together. D Right. J And, but they don't, because, urn, well, they attract paper clips but they don't attract each other. D Right so if I have negative magnet and a positive magnet, they won't attract one another? J No. D Okay, are there any sorts of magnets that do attract one another? J I don't know, I don't think so. D You don't think so, what about, what about magnets which push one another away, are there any sorts of magnets which do that? J Yep, there's one that you showed us in the experiments, you were going like that [*Josie mimics the action of moving a magnet close to another magnet*] and then one would go the other way. D Mmm. J There was a force. D Right; Are they two magnets? J Yeah Ithink so. D Right, so there's some magnets which do push one another away? J Yeah. D Do you know whether they would be positive or negative or positive positive, negative negative or? J I think it would be positive positive and negative negative. D Both push one another away? J Yeah. D Okay so which ones pull one another together? J Urn, probably I think the positive. D Positive and? J Positive. D They attract okay but... J No, no the neg ... oh, I'm not sure. D You're not sure? J No. 266 At some stage, prior to the Phase C data collection, Josie's knowledge was transformed and her previous understandings of attraction between positive and negative magnets were disassociated. There was evidence in this excerpt that Josie no longer believed that magnets attract each other, despite being able to attract some metal objects such as paper clips. However, she believed that two types of magnet, perhaps a negative and a negative form, have the ability to repel one another. It was not known what experiences, either in school or outside, Josie had that caused her knowledge to develop in this way. However, it is clear that Josie seemed to wrestle with the probing questions posed to her by the researcher as she confronted her own understandings of attraction and repulsion in relation to her model of magnetism, finally concluding that she was not sure about the relationship between her conception of polarityof magnets and their ability to repel one another. 6.3.4.2 Weakening of conceptual links: Tentative signs of disassociation Section 6.3.2.1 described some of Josie's initial conceptions about magnets and their application, and, in particular, Josie's view that thermometers used magnetism to measure temperature; a view which she indicated she developed herself. Probing during the course of the post-activity interview concerningthese previously identifiedunderstandin gs, suggested that the concepts may have been reviewed by J osie and their validity questioned. D Down here in your firstone [Researcherrefers to Josie's initial concept map, Figure 6.6], "thermometer" and "magnetism". J The thermometer actually measures like the heat. D Yeah. J And yep. D And you were telling me that a thermometer uses magnetism to find out the temperature? J Yes, but I'm not sure if that's right. D You're not sure that's right? J Well, I think it does but I'm not sure. D Oh, okay have you had, seen something or, or done something that' s made you think differently about that since you wrote that? J No, not really. But it's just like I think that at the end of a thermometer, there's some type of, urn, metal or magnet. 267 D Mmm. J And yep. D Alright, but now you're not so sure about that? J Well, I sort of am ..., I'm not sure. This excerpt from Josie's post-activity interview suggests that she still continued to hold the view that thermometers used magnets or magnetism to measure heat, but appeared to be reviewing the validity of her original concept. Querying J osie about the origins of her uncertainties was unfruitful in identifying a cause(s). This apparent weakening in Josie's adherence to the concept is represented by Transformation #11 [Weakening], on Figure 6.5. 6.3.4.3 losie 's understanding of the induction PVA: Weak restructuring of knowledge Josie's explanation of why electrical current was produced by moving the magnet over the coil revealed that she was uncertain about the process and had not developed understandings which allowed her to articulate a coherent theory of the process. Probing her understanding of the inter-related roles of electricity and magnetism, as demonstrated through the PVA, revealed her knowledge to be somewhat underdeveloped in comparison with most of the other 12 students in the study. D Right, what was your, what do you think the explanation is for how the waving the magnet in front of the coil makeselectricity? Why does it do that? J Urn, (Inaudible) on top of the coil. D Yeah, and you get the meter to move a little showing that there's a bit of electricity being made. J Because it's going through the coil and it, urn, there's, it's got something to do with iron and wire inside the coil. D Yeah. J And that by waving the magnet, it sort of, I'm not sure. D You're not sure? J No. 268 Her understandings of the induction PV A implies a relationship between the copper solenoid and the inner iron core, of primary importance in the electricity generating process. Waving the magnet over the coil appears to have been understood as only a secondary effect, and not crucial to a coherent theory which could adequately explain the phenomenon of induction. In short, it seems that her understandings of the process were declarative in nature, and had progressed little since the identification of Concept l.2B - Magnets make electricity, in Phase B. Thus, the transformation of her knowledge is depicted by Transformation #9 [P.D.] on Figure 6.5. Further evidence of 10sie's declarative understandings of Concept 1.2B is provided by the following excerpt, from a later stage of the post-activity interview, illustrating again the primary importance of the iron core within the copper solenoid in the electricity production process. D Yeah, okay, now you've got here, "magnetism makes electricity" [Researcher refers of Josie's post-activity concept map, Figure 6.8]. J Urn. D Oh you didn't get this from the post visit activities, you just asked your Dad about that? J Yeah. D What did he say? J Yeah, and he said that some types of magnetism makes electricity and that, oh, I can't remember. D You can't remember? J No. D So in that first experiment we were doing, we had this coil of wire connected to a meter and we were waving a magnet in front of it, is that, is that kind of what he was talking, does it relate in any way? J Well because the magnet was waving on top of the coil, there has to be some 1'm not sure what but there has to be something like inside, well, if it makes electricity and you have to wave a magnet on top, then I figured that the magnet would make electricity because would you need other stuff, but if you waved the magnet on top of the coil with the iron inside, it made electricity. The importance that 10sie places in the iron core within the copper solenoid may be related to her earlier development of dissimilar metals producing electricity 269 gained from her Sciencentre experiences. If this was the case, then Concept 4.2B and 4.6B, pertaining to dissimilar metals' abilityto produce electricity may have been progressively differentiated to form Concept 4.21C - Dissimilar metals were in part responsible for the production of electricity in the PVA, and would be represented by Transformation #9 [P.D., P.T.B]. If this was indeed one of Josie's transformations, then it could be argued that she had merged her understandings of the process of induction, as represented by Transformation #10 [Merge]. Overall, it can be concluded that Josie's knowledge transformations concerning a magnet's ability to produce electricity were "weak", and difficultto discern with certainty. Josie's post-activity RGCM (Figure 6.8) represents her knowledge following the PVAs in the classroom. If Josie's concept map is considered to the exclusion of the nodes added by the researcher (green), then it can been seen that her knowledge of the topics appears to be characterised by low levels of differentiation and integration of concepts. 6.3.5 Summary of Josie's knowledge construction The concept map and probing interview data sets relating to J osie provide clear evidence that she had developed a number of new and modifiedunderstandings of both electricity and magnetism from the Sciencentre, PV A, and other experiences. Generally speaking, Josie's Sciencentre experiences appear to have helped her develop knowledge and understanding which can be categorised in two ways. First, knowledge which seems to have progressively differentiated from concepts identifiedin Phase A (i.e., knowledge transformations #2 and #3), and second, concepts which appear to be additions of knowledge that were declarative in nature (i.e., knowledge transformations #4 and #5). 270 Wi... <>f � .. ,,",_ ... �.-.--, MaanetiSm -.---�-.-� .. �·���·�--��·- ...k .. ... �.--.� � ��.. � �.-�.----.•-� thf$ mem m��thmi nwa$!H'0$ hownu.wh / A_ .._0 Il00 10 - �>-ft makoo Figure 6.8. Josie's post-activity researcher-generated concept map. A common feature to both categories of change was that the nature of the transformation resulted in knowledge which was largely declarative in nature. Little evidence of the development of contextual understandings underlying the scientific phenomena portrayed by the exhibits was shown. In short, it seems that J osie' s experiences subsequent to the Phase B data collection have, for the most part, contributed to changes which produced declarative knowledge. Analysis of the data collected in Phase C revealed that Josie experienced relatively few changes to her knowledge and understandings of the topics. In many instances the identified concepts and concept changes were interpreted by the researcher to be small and incremental in nature, comprised weak restructuring of knowledge and minimal levels of progressive differentiation and personal theory building. Furthermore, some of Josie's previously held concepts showed evidence of a degree of disassociation, and in one instance, complete disassociation. Overall, Josie's knowledge and understanding appears not to have undergone a large amount of development in comparison with that of other students who participated in the study. Her trait of being hesitant about her work, and not liking to commit herself unless certain that she was correct, as described by her teacher, may have contributed to her being unwilling to describe fully her understandings of the topics. Also, it was apparent for the Phase A data analysis that Josie did not appear to have the richness in RLE relating to the topics of electricity and magnetism as compared with other students in the study. Furthermore, her concepts identifiedin Phase A were, for the most part, declarative in nature. Josie's low levels of knowledge construction may be understood in part by reference to her reticence and poverty of declared RLEs in the domains of electricity and magnetism. 272 6.4 The Case Study of Roger 6.4.1 Roger's background and characteristics Roger was a particularly interesting case study, due to the fact that his understandings were rich and highly integrated, as well as the fact that he was very thoughtful about his learning experiences. The following excerpt from his teacher's interview with the researcher suggests Roger was above average in his academic abilities across the curriculum, performing particularly well in the areas of mathematics, science and language. Furthermore, he was a student who was regarded as being highly metacognitve. He's [Roger] "a deep thinker," performing well on lateral thinking exercises, and a high achiever in maths, science and language. Roger, at times, appears disorganised, usually as a result of a preoccupation with some element of school work covered earlier in the day. This preoccupation results in him sometimes needing to be prompted to do tasks of which he was well capable of, but neglects to undertake. Roger was quite widely read for someone of this age group, often reading material well above chronological reading age; for example, his favourite author was 1.R.R.Tolkien. The researcher also regarded Roger as being one of the brightest students interviewed during the course of the study, judging his understanding of the topics of electricity and magnetism superior to the knowledge of many junior high school students that the researcher had encountered as a high school science teacher. Roger was also very keen to talk about science during the data gathering interviews, sometimes wanting to further his discussions beyond the technical conclusion of the interview, even though these talks intruded into his lunch hour. During the course of the concept mapping activities, Roger struggled at times to detail all of his understandings in the allotted time for the task. His hand-drawn concept maps were seemingly disorganised, but highly detailed, depicting considerable scientific insight about the topics. 273 Figure 6.9 details Roger's CPI and some of his identifiedkn owledge transformations interpreted by the researcher. Throughout the following discussion of Roger's pre-visit knowledge and understandings, selected excerpts from his interviews will illustrate some of the RLEs from which his understandings originated. 6.4.2 Roger's pre-visit knowledge and understandings 6.4.2.1 Roger's initial understandings of magnets and magnetism Evidence for the claim that Roger had a more detailed understanding of the topics of electricity and magnetism than most of his peers was supported by the large number of concepts and understandings he possessed, as depicted by Phase A of his CPI (Figure 6.9). Further support for this assertion is attested by his initial pre-visit concept map (Figure 6.10) and initial face-to-face interview, during which Roger was probed about his understandings of the topics through open-ended discussion and elaboration of the contents of his self-generated concept map. From analysis of the contents of the concept map and the interview discourse, Roger appeared to have many "correct" scientific understandings of the properties and application of magnets. These included: Magnets are made of metal (l.SA), attract and repel (1.lA, 1.2A), stick to refrigerators (1.6A), have a north and south pole (1.7 A), and that opposite polarities attract each other and like polarities repel (l.4A). He also appreciated that there were different types of magnets including horseshoe, bar, and electromagnets (1.9A, 1.17 A). Unlike most students, Roger understood that metal could be magnetised by stroking it with another magnet (l.lOA) and possessed some declarative and procedural understandings of the way that magnets could create electricity (1.13A, 1.l9A). Interestingly, Roger believed that electricity may be involved in making magnets stick to refrigerators (1.20A), a concept which later had important implication for his personal theory building process, and will be the subject of further discussion in Section 6.4.4.1: 274 J . 1.0A Properties of Magnets 1.lA Magnms can att�m ------, 1.2A Magnms can repel l.4A Opposite polarities of magnets att�m each other and like polarities repel 1.5A Magnets are made of metal 1.6A Magnets stick to refrige�tors 1.7 A Magnets have a north and south pole 1.9A Horseshoe and/or 'Ba� are types of magnms 1.10A Metal can be magnetised by stroking it with another magnet 1.13A Magnetism and elemricity are somehow related ------.... 1.11A An "elemromagnef' is a type of magnet 1.19A Magnets can create elemricity ------.._------___ Alternative views 1.20A Electricity may be involved in making magnet stick to the refrige�tor 2.0A Earth's MagnetiC Field, Compasses, and Application of Magnets 2.1 A Compasses point to the North pole of the Earth / Point North and/or South 2.2A Earth has a magnetic field « 2.6A A simple compass can be made by magnetizing a pin in a cork and placing it in a cup of water :l 2.7A Compass needles are magnetised J! 2. 11A Compass needles are made of steel Do 2. 13A Earth has a north and south magnetic pole 3.0A Properties of Electricity 3.2A Elemricity flows through wires 3.3A Elemricity can create magnetism 3.4A Metals and/or water are condumors of electricity 3.SA Elemrons move through wires / t�vels in a current 3.19A Electrons are microscopic ------+--. 3.20A Human bodies contain millions of electrons 3.21 A Human body contain elemricity 3.22A Elemricity will only flow through a complete circuit 4.0A Types of Electricity, Electricity Production, and Applications of Electricity 4.1A Lightning is a form of electricity 4.2A static Electricity is a form of elemricity 4.3A Batteries make and/or store elemricity 4.4A static elemricity can be produced by rubbing a balloon with a cloth and/or combing your hair 4.7A Thomas Edison invented the light bulb 4.17A An elemric motor can gene�te electricity if you spin it in your hand 4.1SA Solar power uses the sun to gene�te electricity 4.19A Nuclear power uses plutonium to gene�te elemricity ;;;- 4.20A Hydro power uses water to generate electricity m 3 " '" !:> " : > · ca a. '" : :: ::::::: a. iiii "0 a: '" 0 _ -" :0 . "tl ,� P D �OO , Ad ition , . . P P � __ __I + ... ____-t ---1f--- +____ .... -. I j �L------___ DJ 2.1 B Magnets can affect the diremion a compass points 2.2B Compasses point toward magnms � :l !7 1"11 s: 3.0B Properties of Electricity '" '&. cC � ' �����;: :; f '!' 4.08 Types of ElectriCity, Electricity Prod uction, and Applications of Electricity 4.9B static elemricity is elemricity which is not moving ------1 "tl 4.10B Elemricity is produced when a magnet is passed through a coil of wire ? "tl , r is m ns touch one another '-i , � ,:: : � :/���a��:;;;::: m�m, ,0, 'W mlr r .. J.. !7 Ei;;�;;,� e!'��::de by passing electricity through a coil ofwire containing an iron core ;c '" �1. :�g3C Magnms cause�� electrons to move inside the wire of a solenoid which produced the elemricity 0 0 1.7C Heat can "unmagnetise" hot wire " Alternative Views [ <: 1.10C Heat has something to do with magnetism .... et or 2.0C Earth's Magnetic Field, Compasses, and Application of Magnets �0 !" -" ;c 3.0C Properties of Electricity "tl 0'" 0 o 3.1 C Electricity can create magnetism " ID 011 3.2C Electricity flowing through a coil of wire will produce heat 5a. Addition � � f <: =: 3.3C Electricity passing through an iron filled coil of wire will make an elemromagnet � et 3.6C Electricity flows from - to + m or '&. 3 Alternative Views '" �0 cC " 3.15C Heat has something to do with the making of elemricity '" - "tl 3.16C Heat has got something to do with charge flowing through wires I1 "0 _'" 3. 17C Elemricity is in the form of + and - elemrons ------+------1}:J :0 "tl 0 <..:.- '-i 4.0C Types of ElectriCity, Electricity Production, and Application of Electricity � 4.1 C Elemricity is produced by waving a magnet in front of a coil of wire ------4 4.2C Ammeters/meters measure electricity Alternative Views 4.27C Electrons touching one another produce elemricity " 4.2SC Magnetic forces cause electrons to touch one another producing elemricity Figure 6. 9. Roger's CPI and knowledge transformation exemplars. R Magnets can stick to a fridge. D Yep. R Urn, magnets, using magnetism can stick to a fridge because a fridge is made of metal and it has electricity flowing through it, I think. D The fridge does? R No, the door the front door of the fridge and the fridge yeah,the fridge has. D So if the fridge wasn't plugged in, would it still attract magnets? R Urn, yes, because electromagnets, urn, I'm not sure, I think, no I don't think it does stick, I think electromagnets need, urn, need electricity flowingthrough them to be magnetic. D Okay, okay. Roger also possessed a number of understandings about magnetic compasses and the Earth's magnetic field, including: Earth has a magnetic field (2.2A); Earth has a north and south magnetic pole (2. 13A); compass needles are made of steel (2.IIA); compass needles are magnetised (2.7A) ; compasses point to the north pole of the Earth / Point north and/or south (2.IA), and a simple compass can be made by magnetising a pin in a cork and placing it in a cup of water (2.6A). R Yeah acompass is just a magnet with, you can try that if you get just a bowl of water and a cork and then elect, urn, magnetise the pin. DYes. R And you put it in a cork and that will spin towards North and towards the North pole. D Right, why does it do that? R Urn, because I'm not sure actually but I think it's because the north pole has a magnetic force. D Okay, you said that, you said that you put a magnetised pin on this cork. R Yeah. D How would you go about magnetising that pin? R Well you get a magnet. D Yeah. R Like a fridge magnet or anything and then you rub it only one way for about fiftytimes and then you test it, and it should be magnetised. D Right, what's going on there when you do that? R It's, urn, it's being magnetised. D Where did you learnthat? R Cause we were doing a project on China and see Chinese invented the compass and we learnt thatthe compass uses magnets. 276 6.4.2.2 Roger's initialun derstandings of electricity Also extensive were Roger's understandings of electricity which included the concepts: Electricity flowsthrough wires (3.2A); electrons move through wires / travels in a current (3.8A); electrons are microscopic (3.19A); human bodies contain millions of electrons (3.20A); human body contain electricity (3.21A); electricity will only flow througha complete circuit (3.22A); metals and/or water are conductors of electricity (3.4A); and that electricity can create magnetism (3.3A) in the context of the workings of electromagnets. D Okay, what about the topic of electricity, how would you describe to this alien what electricity was? R Electricity, electricity is urn, you can make electricity by passing a magnet through a coil of wire and then that generates electricity. D Mmm. R Yeah, electrons can't move, they can't flowthrough wire, urn, and they're microscopic so you can't see electrons, yeah, and we have millions of electrons in our body, so we have electricity in our body. D Okay, so does electricity flowthrough wires. R Mmm. D Yeah. R Electricity will only flowthrough this, you know complete in a circuit D Mmm, okay, and does it flow anywhere else apart from in wires? R Urn, it can flow inmetal and the metal part of your scissors and it can flow in metal like anything electric. Roger also understood that lightning and static electricity were forms of electricity (4.1A, 4.2A); and that static electricity could be produced by rubbing a balloon with a cloth and/or combing your hair (4.4A) D Mmm, ever heard of static electricity? R Yeah. D What's that? R Urn, you feel an electrical charge when you comb your hair or take off ajum per and if you do it at night, you can see it spark. D Mmm, what about lightning, is that electricity? R Yep, that forms when two, when the positive and negative neurons (sic) in the clouds are separated. 277 D Right. R And then if flowsas a negative, it could hit a positive thing such as a house or a tree. Roger appreciated that there were numerous sources fromwhich electicity could be generated including solar, nuclear, hydro, and wind (4.1 8A, 4.19A, 4.20A, 4.21A) as well as the fact that an electric motor could generate electricity if you spin it in your hand (4. 17A) . In addtion, he understood that batteries made and/or stored electricity (4.3A). Finally, Roger detailed an isolated concept, unconnected to other parts of his concept map (Figure 6.10), namely, Thomas Edison invented the light bulb (4.7A). R Okay, I put Thomas Edison and the light bulb and he used, he tried to make an electric light bulb by flowingelectricity through wires and into a dome shaped thing. D Right. R With the electricity going into another piece of wire and he tried thousands or hundreds of ways and then finallyhe came up with carbon fibre and that worked. D How did you know all that? R Urnwatched this TV show about it andI also have this book called, urnthis magazine (Inaudible). D Okay. R And we also watched a video about Thomas Edison at school. Figure 6.10 details Roger's pre-visit RGCM depicting his considerable understandings of the topics, and the interconnected nature of his knowledge. 278 noe4re'" Figure 6. 10. Roger's pre.visit researcher-generated concept map. 6.4.3 Roger's post-visit knowledge and understandings Roger's knowledge and understandings of the topics of magnetism and electricity were seen to change in a number of ways following the Sciencentre visit. Although the number of identified concepts which were interpreted to be new or changed was small compared with the other students, the scientific insights that he held for each of the concepts identifiedin Phase B (Figure 6.9) were considerable for a Year Seven student. These concepts included: 1.9B - Magnets affect the colour of TVs; 1.10B - Magnets attract electrons when put next to TVs; 1.5B - Hot metal will not stick to a magnet; 2.1B - Magnets can affect the direction a compass points; 2.2B - Compasses point toward magnets; 4.9B - Static electricity is electricity which is not moving; 4.1 OB - Electricity is produced when a magnet is passed through a coil of wire; and 4.19B - Electricity is made when electrons touch one another. Some of these concepts were also thought by the researcher to represent strong evidence of personal coherent theory building, and will be discussed in the following sections. 6.4.3.1 Addition and progressive differentiation of ideas: Roger's "Magnet's attract electrons" model Concepts 1.5B - Magnets attract electrons when put next to TVs, and 1.9B - Magnets affect the colour of TV s, were understandings which Roger appears to have developed though his experiences at the Magnet and TVexhibit at the Sciencentre. D Okay. Tell me about the links between "magnet" and "television" [Researcher refers to Roger's post-visit concept map, Figure 6.11] R And, urn, a magnet and television "A magnet can attract electrons when put next to a television." And that little - the television can change colour when you put the magnet next to it, I think it - the electrons flow towards the magnet and that made the colour, and certain electrons make the red colour on the screen. D How did you know that incidentally? R From the Sciencentre. This small excerpt represents considerable insight concerning the technical operation of colour television sets, and represents understandings not previously 280 identified in Phase A of the study. Although Roger claims that these understandings were derived from his Sciencentre experience, it was, in the view of the researcher, likely that Roger had also drawn on understandings he possessed but that were not expressed during the period of the Phase A data collection. In this sense, Roger's experiences with the Magnet and TVexhibit and the identification of Concepts 1.5B and 1.9B, have resulted from multiple knowledge transformations likely to include, emergence of prior understandings and addition and progressive differentiation of ideas, which are represented by Transformations #la [Emergence, Addition] and #lb [P.D.] on Figure 6.9 6.4.3.2 Further examples of addition and progressive differentiation: Roger's understanding of static electricity Roger's understandings of static electricity also seem to have changed as a result of his Sciencentre experience. Concepts 4.2A - Static electricity is a form of electricity, and 4.4A - Static electricity can be produced by rubbing a balloon with a cloth and/or combing your hair, indicated that Roger possessed both declarative and procedural knowledge of the scientificphenomenon. The following excerpt from Roger's post-visit interview suggests that his experiences at the facilitator-Ied science show had helped Roger appreciate that static electricity was a form of electricity that did not move. D What else have we got here? "Static electricity is electricity that is not moving." [Researcherrefers to Roger's post-visit concept map, Figure 6.11] It's static. How did you know that? R Well, there was this science show at the science centre and that's when he asked what is static electricity, and he told us. D Was he doing it with balloons and things like that? R Yeah,he rubbed balloons against his hair and he put it next to the wall. Transformation #2 [Addition, P.D.] depicts the development of Concept 4.9B - Static electricity is electricity which is not moving. This concept was considered to have been added to Roger's understandings from the science show experience, but 281 also progressively differentiated in the light of his prior understandings of static electricity, Concepts 4.2A and 4.4A. 6.4.3.3 Th e production of electricity:Roger's "touching electrons" model During the course of the post-visit interview, Roger expounded on a new concept which he had included on his post-visit concept map (Figure 6.11) concerning the way electricity is produced. D "Electrons touching each other make electricity" [Researcher refers to Roger's link between "electricity" and "electrons" on his post-visit concept map, Figure 6.11] Tell me about that. R When electrons touch each other, they produce an electric charge which allows the electricity to flow through the wire. And I think that electric charge is produced when it goes "through a circuit" (writing.) I don't think I have it [there on my map]. D You can put that in if you like. R Yeah. And .. .I'll just put that there ... Um ...how that - I'll put that. D Sure. R (Writing.) And I could say something like, urn- I'm not sure about this and that's why I didn't put it on my map. I think what happens is say when a circuit is made ... "produces electriccharge" (writing.) Urn, "When a circuit is made from - when a circuit is made it produces an electric charge when electrons touch each other." D "Electrons touching each other, make electricity flow." Where did you learn that? R Yeah. Urn, I'm not sure. I think my dad told me. D Your dad told you. "Electricity goes through wires ..." R Yeah, we did that one. As with Transformation #1b discussed earlier, Roger's "touching electrons" model of electricity production was likely to have been held by Roger prior to his Sciencentre experience and was thus deemed to have emerged as a result of some combination of the Sciencentre and data collecting activities. This particular model, which is partially represented by Transformation #3a [Emergence, P.D.], was influential in Roger's subsequent knowledge construction and personal theory building following his PV A experiences, in which he later described the induction process of electricity generation in terms of his "touching electrons" model and his 282 "magnets attract electrons" model. These constructions are represented by Transformations #7 [Recontextualisation, P.D, P.T.B] and #8 [ P.D., P.T.B.] and will be discussed in Section 6.4.4.3. 6.4.3.4 Subtle changes in the quality of understandings of the induction process Section 6.4.2.2 described Roger's initial understandings of a number of concepts pertaining to the nature of electricity. His pre-visit understandings included some procedural knowledge of how electricity could be made by passing a magnet through a coil of wire (Concept 1.19A). During the course of the Phase B post-visit interview, Roger describes his experience at the Electric Generator exhibit (Appendix E). D What did you like seeing at the Sciencentre? R Yeah... And I also liked seeing the - the generators. Yeah. That - when I got home my dad told me how they worked. D Oh. Tell me about that. R Well, he said that urn... I already knew that when you turned the handle and copper wire went either through some magnets or went, urn, around with the magnets either side of it. That would generate an electricity, like dad explained it. D Right. So in the Generatorexhibit - I'll get the photograph of it - what's actually going on. Perhaps you can point to some of those bits in there. R Um, well, what that's doing is you turn the handle and that turnsa piece of rubber, urn, and that turns a wheel which turns some copper wire inside some magnets and that generates electricity. D You didn't know that before you went to the Sciencentre? R I'd heard about it but I hadn't actually seen it before. D And dad explained it to you that night? R Yeah. It seems that Roger's experience at the Electric Generator exhibit was one which he found particularly interesting. This assertion is confirmedby the fact that Roger spontaneously recalled and described how he liked the exhibit, and also by the fact that later that evening he engaged his father in a conversation about the exhibit and its operation. It seems likely that Roger's procedural knowledge pertaining to 283 Concept 1.19 A had been recontextualised and also vitalised by the Sciencentre experiences to form Concept 4. lOB. In this sense, Concept 1.19A has been transformed in ways which have given it more vivid meaning for Roger, but not conceptually different in character. This transformation is represented by Transformation #4a [Recontextualisation, P.D.]. In a similar way, it appears that Roger's post-activity knowledge and understandings of the induction process had been transformed through his experiences during the induction PV A. These changes are represented by Transformation #4b [Recontextualisation, P.D.]. However, in the progressive differentiation of Roger's knowledge he drew upon his "magnets attract electrons" model [Transformations #la and #lb] to further construct his personal theory of induction represented by Transformation #8 [ P.D., P.T.B.]. This development will also be the focus of discussion in Section 6.4.4.3. Figure 6.11 represents Roger's post-visit concept map depicting his understandings of the topics. 6.4.4 Roger's post-activity knowledge and understandings Analysis of the post-activity data sets reveals that Roger had developed further his knowledge and understandings of the topics. New concepts and concept changes detailed in Figure 6.9, Phase C, included: 1.2C Electromagnets are made by passing electricity through a coil of wire containing an iron core; 1.3C - Magnets cause electrons to move inside the wire of a solenoid which produced the electricity; 1.7C - Heat can "unmagnetise" wire; 1.10C Heat has something to do with magnetism; 3.1C - Electricity can create magnetism; 3.2C - Electricity flowingthrough a coil of wire will produce heat; 3.3C - Electricity passing through an iron-filled coil of wire will make an electromagnet; 3.6C - Electricity flows from - to +; 3.15C - Heat has something to do with the making of electricity; 3.16C - Heat has got something to do with charge flowing through wires; 3.17C - Electricity is in the form of + and - electrons; 4.1 C - Electricity is produced by waving a magnet in front of a coil of wire; 4.2C -Ammeters/meters measure electricity; 4.27C - Electrons touching one another produce electricity; and 4.28C - Magnetic forces cause electrons to touch one another producing electricity. 284 Eloctrloiiy " .",.ooby Eh�fW., wMn �...... •...--.- !>'lI'l@ •• m mog.of -_···-- woonffiU $Qch: otml:r, ibfctQlb t:"! ootiniud m"&lit filmmriclty $hI(Ic �""'trloiiy lo M�nQtbm �ffe.tht) &10001olly _1. ... 1 pllil)OOO of ft o�'Hn� moving (S_I) llIoo!riolty.a. _ E� _ fu""'ilb wJ(oo- wtutn t.>.Iro $1$cU�l\l% toucll�ach uihei' of gefU,tra1of When. l:l magnfA gt}$S througb of !l!:fO.Utta$oreooki 3 itproo� <>Ioolrtolly Wtum a m-agnehlGaffi@ A G{Snm'l�dMI ffi$ean ioo- afW.thor A te�kdon enm - $PfJf!.sn-oo that ft.tOO. 00 --�- -��-.,-.-.. � "l<>el.1oIIy WMn a turbin@' Is.tummt Itpf""�_ .Ioel_y Figure 6. 11. Roger's poste·visit researcher-generated concept map. Most evident from the data analysis were the stories which illustrate Roger's active struggle between competing understandings in his attempts to develop a cohesive theory accounting for his recent experiences and his prior knowledge. These stories are the subject of attention in the following sections. 6.4.4.1 Th e developing associations of heat, magnetism, and electricity: Personal theorybu ilding When recalling his visit to the Sciencentre, Roger described his interaction with an exhibit which was intended to demonstrate the effect that the heating of iron has on its magnetic properties. The exhibit, entitled Curie Point (Appendix G), consisted of a coil of iron wire suspended in an elevated position, to which a small bar magnet was magnetically attracted and in contact. Pressing a button causes the wire to heat up to a point where it glows red hot and loses its magnetic properties, resulting in the magnet falling away. A quarter of the students who interacted with this exhibit, including Roger, constructed their experiences at the exhibit in terms of Concept l.5B - Hot metal will not stick to a magnet. When questioned about the exhibit, Roger expressed the view that heat was in some way involved with the process of magnetic attraction and repulsion but he was not confident enough of his understandings to incorporate them into his second concept map produced afterthe Sciencentre experience. The PVA involving the construction of an electromagnet appears to have entrenched Roger's association of heat with magnetic attraction and repulsion. The intention of the PV A was to provide students with experiences which would further aid construction and/or reconstruction of their knowledge of the relationships between electricity and magnetism in ways consistent with the canons of science. Roger noticed an additional effect after engaging in the electromagnet PVA, specifically, electricity flowingthrough the solenoid produced heat (Concept 3.2C). The following excerpt from Roger's post-activity interview describes his developing connections of "heat," "magnetism," and "electricity." 286 R Well, I was in the group with Stephen and Geoffrey and we did all the things that we - Geoffrey played around a little bit and made a few sparks and yeah... , I knew it had something to do with heat, the making of electricity, but I wasn't sure until then. D So what do you think heat's got to do with electricity production? R Well, we found that when you had the iron core in it and it was - the coil of wire was electrified, it became hot and after a while the iron coil would magnetise, but if you - in ours if you took it out of it and you tried to pick up some paperclips or something, it wouldn't so you had to keep it in all the time. D Do you think heat's got anything to do with the making of a magnet? R Yeah, that was one of the things that I wasn't sure about. Oh .. .it could be ... that the - maybe it's got something to do with the charge that allows electricity to flowthrough the wire or - or maybe - yeah,something like that. D So the heat's got to do with that or the magnetism has got to do with that? R The - the heat, I think. D The heat's got to do with the charge flowingthrough the wire? R That's what I think, 1'm not sure. D What about the relationship between magnets and heat? R Urn, well, there was the - the Curie - I can't think of... D Curie Point exhibit? R Yeah. And when the coil of wire - it was magnetised, but then it was heated, it was, urn, unmagnetised cause the magnet fell off. D Do you think that you learntanything new from doing those activities - making an electromagnet and making electricity? R Yeah. I found out that heat has actually got a property in making the iron core magnetised. From this excerpt it appears evident that the PV A experience helped develop Concepts 3.2C - Electricity flowing througha coil of wire will produce heat; 1.10C Heat has something to do with magnetism; 3.15C - Heat has something to do with the making of electricity; and 3.16C - Heat has got something to do with charge flowingthrough wires. The excerpt also illustrates that although Roger had experienced numerous changes in his understandings, he seemed uncertain about a number of aspects of this personal construction and the inter-relationships between heat, magnetism and electricity. However, it is difficultto ascertain with any certainty the types and sequence of knowledge transformations which had developed, however, Transformations #5a [Addition], #5b [ P.D.], and #5c [Merging, P.D., P.T.B.], represent the researcher's best interpretation of the 287 knowledge construction processes. In this sequence, Roger's identification of the effect of the solenoid heating as part of his participation in the electromagnet PVA resulted in the addition of knowledge [#5a] . This experience caused him to reflect and associate this heating effect with the fact that charge was flowing through the coil. [#5b]. Finally, in a search for explanation he reflectedand drew upon his Sciencentre experiences at the Curie Point exhibit, and constructed new understandings relating heat with the electricity and magnetism [#5c]. Further evidence of Roger's newly constructed understandings relating heat, magnetism, and electricity was found later during the interview. Roger described an experiment undertaken with his father to test the association of heat and magnetism. Roger tested his ideas by observing the attracting forces of refrigerator magnets when the refrigerator was turned off and allowed to heat up. Roger claimed that when the refrigerator was off for a period of time the magnets ceased to attract and fell off. In his attempt to explain this phenomenon, he wrestled with four competing notions, 1) heat is generated at the back of a refrigerator, arising from the heat sink, 2) the refrigerator will become warmer when turned off, 3) electricity may be involved in making magnets stick to the refrigerator (Concept 1.20A - Section 6.4.2.1) when it is plugged in and switched on, and 4) the need for electricity and the presence of heat to power the electromagnet in the PV A experiment. D Look at your Sciencentre maps. This is the firstmap (Researcherrefers to concept map shown in Figure 6.10) that you did and this is your Sciencentre map (referring to concept map shown in Figure 6.1 1). What things changed about your knowledge? R Well, I didn't really bother to put in a fridge [on my concept map], but I later learnt that the heat has to do with the fridge's attraction to magnets. Urn, I asked my dad about it and he said that - that urn- that urn- that the fridge has the heat flowingthrough the urn- the metal of the fridge and that had something to do with the - with the way that the fridge was actually magnetised. And so we tried it. We turnedthe fridge off for a little while and stuck magnets on when it was on. And then about 30 seconds afterwe turnedit off, they fell off. D Did they really? R Yeah. D That's amazing! The fridge magnets fell off when you turned the fridge off? 288 R Yeah,but my Dad was pretty amazed, too. D He was amazed, too. R Yeah. D So it's got something to do - the fact that those magnets are sticking there, has it got to do with the temperature of the fridge, or has it got to do with the fact that there's electricity flowingthrough the fridge? R I think it's got a mixture of both. Urn. think.I I'm not quite sure, but, urn, it's got something to do with the electricity flowingthrough the fridge. And the actual heat that it's producing. If you ever feel the back of the fridge or the top of the fridge, it's really hot. These experiences seem to confirm and entrench Roger's associations between heat, magnetism, and electricity. This alternative conception is surprising and alerts science educators to the possibility of unintended learning outcomes from classroom and visits to places such as the Sciencentre, experiences which may be reinforced by other subsequent experiences. 6.4.4.2 Electricityproductio n: Further progressive differentiation of ideas Section 6.4.3.3 described part of Roger's personal theory of how charge and electricity were produced through the process of electrons touching each other. When probed about his understanding of electricity production in terms of why the magnet was able to generate electricity in the solenoid, Roger employed a combination of his "touching electrons" model and his "magnets attract electrons" model in order to explain the induction phenomenon. With the use of these models, Roger developed Concept 4.28 - Magnetic forces cause electrons to touch one another, producing electricity. D We did the experiment in two parts: one was an experiment where we made electricity and the other one was when we made a magnet. Tell me briefly about the one when we made electricity. What did we do? R Well, we put the iron core through the - well, that didn't really work for us, so we turnedit in a little bit and we stuck the magnet through the coil and that made a bit more electricity than just with the iron core in it. D Mmm, cause you're putting the magnet rightin the middle of it. R Yeah, and the magnet was actually going in and out. Yeah. D What was the explanation for that? How did that make electricity? 289 R Um ...well, maybe it sort of got something to do with the heat. Um ...well, if it - could ... when - when the magnetic forces were going through the wire, maybe - maybe that brought on the electrons touching together, which allowed some electricity to flowthrough the wire. D Electrons touching together? That makes electricity? RUm ... D What is electricity? How's it relate to electrons? R Electrons ...well, to flowthrough wire, urn, when the electrons - if a negative anda positive one touch, I think that's right - that - or it could be positive and positive and negative and negative - when they touch, they, urn, produce an electrical charge which then allow the electricity to flow through the wires into a light bulb or whatever. D And bringing the magnet in - what's going on there? R Well, the magnet's forces would be pushing the, urn, electrons together so they produce that charge. This excerpt suggests that Concepts 1.1A, 1. lOB, and 4.20B have contributed to developing Concept 4.28C, as is depicted by Transformation #6 [Recontextualisation, Merging P.D., P.T.B.] on Figure 6.9. This transformation was regarded by the researcher as being recontextualisation in the sense that Roger employed his "magnets attract electrons" model for colour television sets [Transformations #la and #lb] to further construct his personal explanation for the induction process. Akin to this process, his understandings of his "touching electrons model" have been merged and progressively differentiated in the development of his personal theory of induction. Roger's combined explanation for the induction process can be seen in the development of his understandings through Transformation #7 [P.D., P.T.B.] in which Concept 1.19A - Magnets can create electricity, and the concepts represented in Transformations #la and #lb, helped develop Concepts 1.3C - Magnets cause electrons to move inside the wire of a solenoid which produced the electricity, and 4.1 C - Electricity is produced by waving a magnet in front of a coil of wire. 290 6.4.4.3 Properties of electricity: Laterecontextualisation and emergence Even during the last minutes of Roger's post-activity interview, pre-existing concepts which were not evident in either Phase A or B were emerging. Roger, in his desire to continue to talk about science and his RLEs, described further his understandings of the properties of electricity. Specifically, he detailed his understandings that electricity was in the form of positive and negative electrons (Concepts 3.17C) and that electricity flowsfr om the negative to the positive (Concept 3.6C). Understandings of the direction of the flowof electricity were constructed from his awareness that electricity flowsthrough wire and must have an associated directional property. Roger resorted to his prior knowledge and RLEs recalling a diagram he once saw in a text book which showed lightning moving from negatively charged clouds to positively charged trees. From this recollection, he constructed an understanding that all electricity must flow ina direction from negative to positive. D "Electricity runs from negative to positive" [Researcherrefers to Roger's post-activity concept map, Figure 6.12] R Yeah. D Where did you pick that up from? R Urn. well, when I was doing my map, I - well, I already knew that electricity ...um, has, urn, negative and positive because - I'd seen this picture - and - there's a raincloud and there's a tree down there, and a bolt of electricityis going down on the tree and there's a - there's negative electrons up the top and positive ones down the bottom. Yeah. So when - and then the bolt of lightning - the fork could only travel from negative to positive to actually be lightning. D You say it was a book you read that in? R It was - it was a long time ago urn, yeah. D But you only just recalled this when you did this last map. Is that right? R Urn, yeah... but - 1... yeah.I only recalled it when I did this last map, Yeah, and so I knew that - before. I knew in this one but I didn't really know how to put it, that there was - electricity was made of positive and negative electrons, but I didn't know really how to put it and in this one I remembered seeing that picture and then ... Interestingly, Roger claimed that although he appreciated his understandings of Concepts 3.17C and 3.6C, it was only in this last stage that he knew how to 291 express his understandings on his concept map. In this sense his understandings seem to be somewhat more than just an emergence of an idea, and are thus characterised by Transformation #8 [Emergence, P.D.], on Figure 6.9. A further example of late emergence and transformation of concepts is represented by Roger's understandings of the measurement of the flowof electricity in the PV As through experiences on his uncle's farm which had an electric fence. He stated that the terms "amps" and "volts" were units of electricity, and believed that amps might be a measure of the amount of flow. However, he confessed to being somewhat uncertain about these assertions. R Urn, well, the micro ammeter can be um... um, can be neither - and that means that, urn - put it in ... is able to measure electricity in amps. And----- D A micro ammeter is able to measure electricity in amps. Right? R Yeah. And an amp is a measure. Like, centimetres is to a distance. Urn, and electricity can be made to a largescale, I think, with volts. I'm not sure, but my grandpa said that - see, he lives on a farm, right?And he has an electric fence to keep the cows out of his garden. And he saidit' s - it's 10,000 volts. Right? But the number of - the number of amps it's passing through or something like that means that when you touch it gives enough for it to move away from it. It's - it's at 10,000 volts, but when it's flowing it's got somethingto do with the amount of amps. D Right. So amps has got to do with the amount of flow? R Yeah,I think so. D And volts has got to do with? R Urn, the actual, um ...the electricity that...mmmm ...the actual electricity ...no. Maybe it's got to do with the electrons and how electric currents ...electri - electritise ... D How much electricity? R Yeah. How much electricity is flowingthrough them because the electrons don't move until they are pushed againsteach other. Figure 6.12 detail Roger's post-activity RGCM demonstrating the interconnected nature of his understandings following the PV As. 292 When a clfcl1lt Ismade mkromererw uS$dto me&Sum it f When magnm (N+N Of S of S) are put togeth�r tooyrepel _et � Figure6. 12. Roger's post-activity researcher-generated concept map. 6.4.5 Summary of Roger's knowledge construction In summary, some of Roger's understandings were sophisticated, insightful, and demonstrated evidence of thinking at an abstract level. Other understandings were representative of surprising alternative ideas which may have been generated by his experiences at the Sciencentre and observations made during the PVAs . It is evident that Roger's overall understandings were constructed through a series of overlapping, reinforcing experiences which were encountered in home, school, and informal contexts. Each experience appeared to have influencedthe subsequent experiences and the subsequent knowledge which was constructed. Further, in the process of wrestling with several competing ideas, it appears evident that Roger was in the process of developing a personal, cohesive theory of electricity and magnetism which would help to explain many of the experiences he encountered during his visit to the Sciencentre and subsequent participation in the PV As. The processes of Roger's knowledge construction were also seen to be complicated, involving multiple transformations which were themselves interpreted by the researcher to be involved in the development of understanding. Many of the understandings which Roger developed could be classifiedas being contextual in nature, and characterise him as a highly metacognitive knowledge builder. 294 6.5 The Case Study of Hazel 6.5.1 Hazel's background and characteristics Hazel came from a German family background, and was the youngest member of her family; her closest sibling being 10 years older than she. Hazel was regarded by her teacher to be a prolific reader with a strong orientation toward language and language studies, as exemplifiedby the following excerpt from her teacher's interview with the researcher: Hazel often doesn't fully attend to classroom lessons because the book she is currently reading is open in her lap ! However, she's a student that does demonstrate a very strong orientation to language and language studies. Hazel is planning on attending a secondary school next year, where German immersion is offered from years 8 to 10 and the first6 months of yeareight is an intense German language mastery course. Although she's perfectly capable of mastering maths or science concepts in class, these subjects aren't really her preferred area of endeavour. Hazel was regarded by the researcher to have a basic knowledge of electricity and magnetism, but not nearly as extensive a one, as that of Roger or Andrew. Figure 6.13 details Hazel's CPI and some of her identifiedknowledge transformation interpreted by the researcher. Throughout the following discussion of Hazel's pre visit knowledge and understandings, selected excerpts from her pre-visit interview will illustrate and exemplify some of the experiences from which Hazel claims her understandings originated. 6.5.2 Hazel's pre-visit knowledge and understandings Hazel, like many students in the study, initially held a variety of concepts and understandings of electricity and magnetism, but did not appreciate the significant inter-relationships which linked the two domains. 295 1.0A Properties of Magnets 1 .1 A Magnets can attract 1.2A Magnets can repel 1.3A Magnets can attract certain types of metal 1.4A Opposite polarities of magnets attract each other and like polarities repel 1.5A Magnets are made of metal 1.7A Magnets have a north and south pole 1.8A Magnets create/use magnetism 1.10A Metal can be magnetised by stroking it with another magnet 2.0A Earth's Magnetic Field, Compasses, and Application of MagnetE 2.1 A Compasses point to the north pole of the Earth / Point north and/or south 2.3A Magnets are used in motors 2.4A Compasses are attracted to magnetic fields / affected by magnets 2.9A Magnets are used in locks and latches 2.0C Earth's Magnetic Fi eld, Compasses, and Application of Magnets 1 !Cl 2.1 C Magnets cause elect ric motors to spin -0 Cl () 3.0C Propertiesof Electr icity CLI 3.1 C Electricity can create magnetism T la 3.2C Electricity flowing through a coil of wire will produce heat '&. 3.3C Electricity passing th rough an iron filled coil of wire will make an electromagnet � Alternative Views 3.13C Electricity flows fas ter through copper than other metals 4.0C Types of Electricity ' Electricity Production, and Application of Electricit� �il 4.1 C Electricity is produce d by waving a magnet in front of a coil of wire 4.6C Only a very small am ount of electricity was produced in the PVA Alternative Views f 4.20C Dissimilar metal we re in part responsible for the production of electricity in the PVA i 4.30C More electricity is p roduced by moving the magnet in front of the coil because of friction 7. Addition Figure 6. 13. Hazel's CPI and knowledge transformation exemplars. 6.5.2.1 Hazel's initial understandings of magnets and magnetism It was apparent from Hazel's initial concept map and interview that her understandings of the properties and applications of magnets and electricity were, for the most part, consistent with accepted scientific views. Figure 6.13, Phase A, details Hazel's views of magnets and magnetism; including the fact that magnets can attract and repel (l.lA, 1.2A), magnets have a north and south pole (1.7A), and that opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel (l.4A). She viewed magnets as being made of metal (1.5A), able to attract certain types of metal (1.3A), and that metal could be magnetised by stroking it with another magnet (1. lOA). Interview data suggested that this latter concept led her to assert that magnets create or use magnetism (1.8A). Hazel also held several views relating to magnetic compasses and applications of magnets, including: Compasses point to the North pole of the Earth / Point North andlor South (2.lA), compasses are attracted to magnetic fields or are affected by magnets (2.4A), magnets are used in motors (2.3A), and magnets are used in locks and latches (2.9A). A number of Hazel's understandings of magnetism were developed from related learning experiences (RLEs) which she had previously gained from a science centre elsewhere, namely, the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney, Australia. The following excerpt from her initial interview reveals the development of her understanding about how an unmagnetised piece of metal could be magnetised (1. lOA). D "Magnets are magnetised metal." [Researcher refers to link between the concepts "Metal" and "Magnetism" on Hazel's pre-visit concept map - Figure 6.14.] So you can have a piece of metal which is not a magnet? Ha Yeah,I think certain types like steel or something, by stroking it. D So you can make another piece of metal a magnet? Ha I think there's a certaintype that you can stroke. D So you can make it a magnet by stroking it? Have you ever done this? Ha No. D You've just heard about it? Ha Yeah. At the Powerhouse Museum. D Oh, in Sydney? 297 Ha Yeah, [the museum] shows you types of metal you can get to magnetism and which metals the magnets stick to. D And they have an exhibit there where you could make a magnet? Ha No, it just has an information area ... like "this is what you do to make a magnet." D So it was like a text panel?and just described how you made a magnet? Ha Yeah. D How long ago was that that you saw that? Ha Two weeks ago? ... Three weeks ago. D Did they have a lot of exhibits on electricity and magnetism? Ha Urn,ther e's a whole area there on colour, lights, electricity and magnets. It is interesting that Hazel's description of the experiences which helped her construct knowledge about the process by which metals could be magnetised were ones which were not particularly interactive, although her predilection to reading perhaps it should not be so surprising. Although Hazel did not divulge what her understandings of the process may have been prior to this RLE, the evidence of knowledge construction in this study strongly suggests that her understandings were, at least, recontextualised by her Powerhouse Museum RLEs. 6.5.2.2 Hazel's initialund erstandings of electricity Hazel described an interesting interpretation of a process through which electrocution by lightning might be avoided. From her discussion of electrocution, in the pre-visit interview, it was interpreted that she held a more in-depth understanding of the properties and characteristics of electricity than many of the other students considered in this research. D What are some of the properties of electricity that you can think of? Ha Yeah. Urn... You can get electric shocks - if stick your finger in a power point. D What happens when you do that? Ha When you stick your finger in the socket? D Yeah. If I got a bit of metal and I shove it in the power point and get an electric shock, what's happening, do you know? Ha Well, the metal is a conductor, and it goes through the metal and bums your hand. D Right. So electricity's flowing out. 298 Ha Yeah,into your hand. And if you haven't got your hands in the right places ... if there's electricity coming from storms and things, and you can get struck, you can stop yourself from being killed usually it goes straight down [through your body]. People get killed ... But if you sit like that [*Hazel, places her hands on her knees*] you can protect yourself from being killed. D That's from lightning strikes? Ha Mum told me that. D Mum told you that? Ha Yeah. D So if you're sitting down it'll go through your arms. If you're----- Ha Unless you put your armslike that, there's a chance you might stop yourself from killing - it [the electricity] won't go through your heart. D Right. So if there's a storm around, you'd better be sitting down with your arms like that. Is that right? Ha It can hit most things that are taller that the ground, like trees and things ... Urn, ... Electricity starts fires. D So electricity is hot? Ha Yeah. Like a light bulb, it's really hot if you hold it for too long. D You said that if electricity goes through your heart it'll kill you. Why is that? Any idea? Ha Because it's very strong in voltage. D Voltage. What does that mean? Ha How strong it is. It measures how strong electricity is. D You said electricity flows through ... - you said metal was a conductor. Ha Uh-huh. D What does that mean? Ha It means that it - electricity can flowthrough things easily, like wires, whereas if you put a block of wood there it wouldn't. D Why is that? Why does electricity flow so well through water as opposed to metal? Ha I don't know. From this short excerpt it was evident that Hazel understood that lightning is a form of electricity (4. 1A); voltage is a measure of the strength of electricity (3.7A); metal becomes hot when conducting electricity (3.14A); electricity can start fires (3.11A); electricity can give you an electric shock (3.9A); electricity can kill you / electrocute you (3.6A); electricity takes the path of least resistance (3.16A); metal is a conductor of electricity (3.4A); electricity flowsthrough wires (3.2A); and wood is an insulator of electricity (3.5A). From further probing it was also evident that Hazel also had some RLEs from the Powerhouse Museum and other home-based 299 experiences, which have helped her develop understandings that electricity powers various electrical appliances (3.IA), and that generators made electricity (3.5A). D What else did you see down there [at the museum] Ha With electricity they had a bike - a sort of bike, and you had to pedal really fast to make the front partof the - engine. And it had a hundred watts or something, to get the light going - certain lights there and make various appliances work. D So what was that thing you were pedalling on? Ha It was like an exercise bike. D How did riding on the bike make the lights light up? Ha Energy? D Energy? Right. Do you know the name of the thing that was making it do that? Ha Um----- D Every heard of the term "generator" before? Ha Yeah. D You have? I think that might be it. Ha Yeah (Laughs). I remember when we got electricity in our house last year they had a generator. Every time they wanted to get something going, they had to go out the back and start itup again. D So do generators have anything to do with magnets? Ha I don't really know about that. Figure 6.14, details Hazel's pre-visit RGCM describing her understandings of the topics. 300 BooI!W!y� · lI\rollflh y<>u,fuccltwM ',," ycu arn m� from m&m J .,..-..l.,.,..,.,. _In kliIycu • � � , '.... -"' a'G "sod in ." /" ..., t ' ''- ' ... , ' /... /,/ / , " Meg_ a," m .... of '" celflllll\yp8tI of metal .1 d",,* , 11\8 ...... fu " I " by atMfdnQ ,// _m wM...... ,., 1l>� _the_ .... t M8lI_ lImro .. . •• "'P"$ need'"t<> .!1i...... '-.. a_po'" . ",._ 1 .. ", 01,01<> I .�l(�-.-- �,=-...-� .-. � h_ ff"'" '� �� <4 M"Iln.. ts_ ....S_ � you an / i'// ..' Po'" ,/ ,i /£hl<>ltlGlly mall<>$ .. �- / .. iIlII\t bull>aiIlII\t ��"'�...... �--...... j. !>Ohlt'. M,", f El6cIIfoty 1 __._ �i·'i'>·.·,,>D ----- ...... - ,/.///// /.hI<>ItIGIIy ,"""" w ·· meIII"' lo /// 1neome\yp8tl_ conduct /�. : ___-- beatem Nut;!> ""Ill Ehl<>ltlGlly maltoe �0fif9"- - h: .$n Ina:ulatQT -or �>!l!-@ �n:r.,.t:t , il10>11\81\10l1li""'" .... rod ...... ,/" �- 'R...... - nm , li"'� 1UII$ ohI<>ItIGIIy lo_ --.?" R...... - ....._ -----+-�_,...... ( .,.. .� Il10>11>0S_ Pole "���maII<>$ _" ..f_ � \yp8tI ....1li/1tt n ..... malol$ is. 0< .rntl!t!l$Ufit ecfthe to "t.>nn of ohI<>ItIGIIy "'""lJO o\r"lIfIll>of SM11l> !ill"' • .,! S,,",h 10 ..... - '" �"W$1 F.� " � ('/1� Figure 6. 14. Hazel's pre-visit researcher-generated concept map. 6.5.3 Hazel's post-visit knowledge and understandings As it was with most students in the study, Hazel's knowledge was transformed in numerous ways following her visit to the Sciencentre. Newly identified concepts and concept changes, featured in Figure 6.13, Phase B, included: 1.lB - Magnets can ruin TV s; 1.2B - Changing the polarity of an electric motor will change the direction it spins; l.5B - Hot metal will not stick to a magnet; 1.17B - Heat repels magnets; 2.1B - Magnets can affect the direction a compass points; 2.4B - Magnets cause motors to spin; 3.4B - Zinc and copper conduct electricity; 3.8B - Electricity affects compasses; 4.1B - Static electricity is a form of electricity; 4.2B - Static electricity is produced when you rub a balloon or comb your hair; 4.5B - Electricity can affect the direction a compass points, and 4.7B - Connecting dissimilar metals can produce electricity. 6.5.3.1 Subtle changes in knowledge: Emergence, Recontextualisation, and Addition Unlike other case study students discussed thus far in Chapter Six, for Hazel, few pre-existing ideas emerged in subsequent phases of the study. Concepts 4.1B - Static electricity is a form of electricity, and 4.2B - Static electricity is produced when you rub a balloon or comb your hair, were perhaps the only examples of emergence that could be identifiedby the researcher. However, these concepts were contextualised in terms of Hazel's Sciencentre experiences, and so are more properly defined in terms of Transformation #1 [Emergence, Recontextualisation], on Figure 6.13. Hazel's experience with the Magnet and TVexhibit caused her to reflect and integrate her prior experience of a classroom-based discussion with her teacher, Mr. Wallace, leading to the development of Concept l.lB - Magnets ruin TVs. In this transformation Hazel both associated and connected the Sciencentre experience with a prior RLE with her teacher. The changes to her understanding which resulted were dramatic, but nonetheless, resulted in two independent experiences being linked 302 together in her overall knowledge of magnets. This change is represented by Transformation #2 [Emergence, Recontextualisation, P.D.], and is supported by the following excerpt: D You've got here "Magnets ruin TVS." [Researcherrefers to the link between "magnets" and "television" on Hazel's post-visit concept map, Figure 6.15] Tell me about that. Ha Yeah. They [the Sciencentre] had a TV and it can also go on computers, urn, the TV. And whenever you put the magnet near it, different colours would come. And that happened on not just that one, but on any TV if you stick it there on the screen. The same with the computers. Mr. Wallace told us about, urn... one of the old computers [in our classroom], someone put a magnet on the screen and no matter what they did, it was there until the computer guy came [to fixit] - urn, there was always a sort of a grey mark there. D Why does it do that? Ha I don't know. 6.5.3.2 Development understandings of the properties of electricity Hazel's understanding of inter-relationships between electricity and magnetism were developed further in two ways. First, there was evidence of the development of new understandings about electricity, specifically, electricity passing through wire coils somehow affects the direction magnetic compasses point, represented by Transformation #3 [P.D., Merge, Reorganisation]. Second, there was evidence of a further developed appreciation of the role and effects of magnets in electric motors, represented by Transformation #4 [P.D., Addition]. The following excerpt from her post-visit interview reveals that RLEs at the Magnetismfrom Electricityexhibit, and the Electric Motor exhibit resulted in distinct knowledge transformations, when compared with her initial understandings and are supportive of Transformation #3: D You've got here "Electricity, magnet and compasses" [Referring to concept map shown in Figure 6.15]. "Magnets make compasses go haywire," and "Electricity makes compasses go haywire." Tell me about those concepts there - how you link them. Ha Urn. You mean the exhibit? 303 D Well, you've got some ideas here about compasses and the way they behave in the presence of magnets and electricity. I'd just like to know how you got those ideas. Ha I already knew about the magnets makingcompasses go funny, but at the Sciencentre they had a thing and it had glass and underneath the glass it had lots and lots of magnets andlots and lots of compasses. And the metal there was - urn, a sort of like a turningthing. Like a rod. And it had wire coiled aroundit and when you press these buttons it'd turn around, and wherever it went the magnets - the compasses would spin round. D Right. So you've got this coil of wire. What happens when you press the button? Ha Urn,the compasses, urn,the point just started going around and if you turned it this way, they'd all go that way. D What's the pressing the button doing? Ha It's making - it's putting the electricity through the wire. D And why would electricity flowingthrough a coil upset these compasses? Ha I don't know. D You don't know. And you say here that magnets also make compasses go haywire. Where did you pick that up? That was something on your old map [Figure 6.14]. Ha Yeah,that was something that I knew about. D Yeah. You did mention it I remember. There's something about electricity going through wire which upsets compasses, and there's something about magnets which upsets compasses. Is that right? Ha Yes. D But you already knew this [magnets affect compasses], but you picked this up from the Sciencentre - about the electricity upsetting the magnets. Ha Yeah. It appears that Hazel's knowledge about the actual relationship(s) between the production of magnetism from electricity and the production of electricity from magnetism is somewhat embryonic, but nonetheless developing. Hazel has participated in at least two experiences which suggested to her that there were some connections between the two domains, but at the stage of the post-visit interview, had not constructed a framework with which to explain and articulate successfully her observations and beliefs about what was occurring. In Transformation #3, Hazel had experienced multiple transformations through her Sciencentre RLEs including, progressive differentiation, merging, and reorganisation. Her concepts 2.4A Compasses are attracted to magnetic fieldsor are affected by magnets, and 3.2A Electricity flows throughwir es, had transformed to Concepts: 2.1B Magnets can 304 affect the direction a compass points, 3.8A Electricity affects compasses, and 4.5B Electricity can affect the direction a compass points. This transformation was regarded as having progressively differentiated in that Hazel's ideas of the behaviour of compasses had now developed to include the fact that electricity passing through a coil of wire would produce similar affects. These changes were also considered a form of the merging of semi-independent concepts, in that, Concepts 2.4A and 3.4A were apparently not directly associated prior to Hazel's Sciencentre RLEs, but were now related. Finally, Transformation #3 was regarded as reorganisation since new connections between existing concepts were developed from the RLE, and were evidenced by the links between "electricity," "compass," and "magnet," on Hazel's post-visit concept map (Figure 6.15). Hazel's Sciencentre experiences at the Electric Motor exhibit also seen to have contributed to developing further her understandings of electric motors and magnets. Transformation #4 [Addition, P.D.] describes a change in Hazel's understandings which suggest a basic association between magnets and electric motors (Concept 2.3A) which had been transformed to Concepts 1.3B and 2.4B though progressive differentiation and addition. D You've got here that "electricity generates motors," and that "magnetism generates motors" [referring to concept map shown in Figure 6.15]. Tell me about those ideas and links. Ha They [the Sciencentre] had a - I think it was like a bar - I don't remember very clearly now, but when you press the button the electricity would go through and it started spinning. And with the magnets it had the same sort of thing except it had two big magnets here, and when you press the button it'd start going round but you'd have to put the two magnets on there, whichever way it D So the magnets with the motor wouldn't spin? Ha Yes. D Right. And what else did you do to it? Did you - you put the magnets up to make the motor spin. Was there anything else you could do with that exhibit? Ha You could press it [a button] in reverse and it'd go round the other way. D What's turning it to reverse do? Any idea? Ha Ummm ...no. 305 D Okay. So I'm really trying to figure out here what is the link between magnetism generates motors. So are you saying here that without magnetism or a magnet you couldn't have a motor working? Ha No, you couldn't have electricity. D Right. Is it saying you could have either/or? Ha Yeah. D You could have electricity to make the motor work; or you could have magnets to make the motors work? Ha Yes. Hazel's post-visit RGCM (Figure 6.15) describes her understandings of the topics. 6.5.4 Hazel's post-activity knowledge and understandings Hazel's interpreted concepts and concept changes following her PVA experience, detailed in Figure 6.13, Phase C, included, 1.2C - Electromagnets are made by passing electricity through a coil of wire containing an iron core; l.4C - Electromagnets cease to be magnets when the electricity is switched off; 2.1 C - Magnets cause electric motors to spin; 3.1C - Electricity can create magnetism; 3.2C - Electricity flowingthrough a coil of wire will produce heat; 3.3C - Electricity passing through an iron-filledcoil of wire will make an electromagnet; 3.13C - Electricity flowsfaster through copper than other metals; 4.6C - Only a very small amount of electricity was produced in the PV A; 4.20C - Dissimilar metals were, in part, responsible for the production of electricity in the PV A; and 4.30C - More electricity is produced by moving the magnet in front of the coil because of friction. 306 � _I applio"""" Everymagnet has .. North pole � genemIe$ - Mag_gone_ mOlats N�JR� p-ob ;:H'l>1 11{J4h South .pole and sOl1th p Figure 6. 15. Hazel's post-visit researcher-generated concept map. 6.5.4.1 Developing understandings of the production of electricity Probing Hazel's understanding following the PV A experiences, revealed interesting knowledge transformations which appeared to be in competition with each other. Interpretation of Hazel's knowledge and understandings revealed transformations which resulted in the merging of semi-independent concept domains in order to provided explanations for observed phenomena. For example, Hazel, in Transformation #8 [Merge], Figure 6.13, depicts the merging of multiple semi independent conceptual transformations, including Transformations #5, #6, and #7, in an attempt to construct an explanation for the production of electricity during the PV A. Transformations #5 [Addition] and #6 [P.D., P.T.B.] demonstrated that her experiences at the Sciencentre caused her to develop new understandings of the fact that dissimilar metals can produce electricity, illustrated by the following excerpt from Hazel's post-visit interview: D You've got here "Zinc and copper are conductors of electricity." [Researcher refers to the concepts on Hazel's post-visit concept map - Figure 6.1 5.] That's something you didn't have on your old map over here, I don't think [Researcher refers to Hazel's pre-visit concept map - Figure 6.14.]. Ha No. D No, where'd you pick that up from? Ha I picked that up from the science show at the Sciencentre by doing the experiment. D Tell me about that. Ha They got two people from the audience and one person had copper - a copper rod - and another person had the zinc. And they were attached to a meter and it recorded the electricity going through. And when they touched each other, the electricity went up. D So was there electricity flowing through them before they touched hands? Ha No. Oh, it was - I think it was but it wasn't like going between one person and the other person. Hazel's understanding of the principle that dissimilar metals could produce electricity was employed to further construct her explanation for the production of electricity in the induction PV A. These understandings are represented by the addition of Concept 4.7B - Connecting dissimilar metals can produce electricity, developed through her Sciencentre experiences [Transformation #5]. It was the 308 interpretation of the researcher that concepts 4.7B and 3.4B were progressively differentiated to shape Concept 4.20C - Dissimilar metals were in part responsible for the production of electricity in the PVA [Transformation #6]. The following excerpt demonstrates Hazel's merging of these semi-independent conceptual domains: D That first activity where we were making electricity by waving the magnet in front of the coil. What was your understanding or explanation as to what was making the electricity? Ha The iron and the copper and the magnets, urn,I think - the magnet had something to do with it...um ... D The iron and the copper ... Ha Well, the iron and the copper, it wouldn't work if the iron wasn't there and it wouldn't work if the copper wasn't there. It could also work the other way around. Hold the iron that - on there, you could put the magnet in and out and it would also produce more electricity, I think. D Were there any exhibits in the science museum that were kind of similar to that, do you recall? Ha Um ...no, not in the actual exhibits but at the science show, and there was I think copper and zinc - copper, urn- a copper and an iron. And a zinc rod and someone held the rod and someone had the other one and they were attached to a big meter. And when they touched hands, the thing would go. D You've got here on your concept map "copper and iron to make electricity when a magnet is waved in front of it." Ha Uh-huh. D So if you didn't have either one of these it wouldn't work. Ha No. D What if it had copper inside copper, would it still work? Ha I don't know. I think Ijust learnttoday, that, urn, I think electricity moves faster through copper. I think it might work but it might go a little slower. D What I'm trying to figure out, do these two metals need to be different for the magnet to produce electricity? Or no? Or don't you know? Ha I don't get that question. D In other words, I've got copper wrapped around the tube. Right? Ha Yeah. D I'm putting iron inside, which is a different metal. I'm just wondering whether you know whether the two metals need to be different for this effect to be achieved. Ha I think maybe they just have to be ... D They just have to be copper and iron. Ha Or copper and zinc. D Okay. Ha But they can't be copper and copper. 309 The issue of Hazel's understandings and knowledge of the induction process are further complicated by her written explanation for the observed effect of the induction experiment which was a part of all students' PVA experience. Hazel suggested that: The iron and the magnet attract each other and generated electricity through the copper. You get more electricity by moving the magnet quickly because of friction. This excerpt indicates the existence of Concept 4.30C and is interpreted to be an addition transformation developed from the PV A experiences [Transformation #7]. Given that the written explanation, which suggests a friction model of electricity production similar to that of Heidi' s understandings, and her verbal explanation, are somewhat different may indicate that Hazel is searching her knowledge in an attempt to develop a cohesive theory which would explain the phenomena. It appears that Hazel was perhaps not entirely satisfiedwith her explanation given her vagueness in the conversation and statement of uncertainty. This may suggest that this theoretical framework does not readily interconnect entirely with her observations. There was clear evidence that Hazel was attempting to reconcile her observations and provide explanations in terms of prior knowledge and experience of the demonstration of electricity production with dissimilar metals, seen at the Sciencentre. Notwithstanding this, Hazel provided the best and most acceptable explanation at the time of the interview. The previous excerpts of Hazel's explanations suggest that she seems to have merged the semi-independent conception, that of friction, into the potpourri of her understandings of the process of electricity production. The combination of transformations #5, #6, and #7 represent the merging of these multiple explanations [Transformation #8]. 310 6.5.4.2 Developing understandings of the production of magnetism from electricity While Hazel's understandings of the production of electricity through induction appeared to have developed in alternativeways , her understandings of operation of the electromagnet appear to have developed in ways consistent with accepted scientific views. The PV A experiences of building and testing an electromagnet seem to have developed concepts 1.2C - Electromagnets are made by passing electricity through a coil of wire containing an iron core and Concept l.4C - Electromagnets cease to be magnets when the electricity is switched off, which progressively differentiated to Concept 3.1C - Electricity can create magnetism. These processes are represented by Transformation # 9 [P.D.]. While Hazel had developed Concept 3.1C, which appears on her post-activity concept map (Figure 6.16), she seemed not to have developed contextual knowledge or a cohesive theory to explain the phenomenon. D What about the post-visit activity where we had the electricity passing through the coil and making themagnet? What was your explanation of why that worked? Ha I think the electricity from the meter [power supply] magnetised it. D Any idea how it was doing that or what was gong on? Ha No. Figure 6.16, details Hazel's post-activity RGCM describing her understandings of the topics. 6.5.5 Summary of Hazel's knowledge construction Although Hazel's understandings of the properties of electricity and magnetism were, in some respects, quite detailed and sophisticated, her understandings of the inter-relationship between the two domains was initially very poor. However, these understandings showed signs of development in ways consistent with accepted scientific views, through several experiences at the 311 __-c an produce Mot",,, can be run hy magnetism lroo andcopper make electricity when a magnet is waves above them Figure 6. 16. Hazel's post-activity researcher-generatedconcept map. Sciencentre and with the PVAs. Specifically, Hazel developed a more sophisticated understandings of the properties of electricity, i.e., electricity passing through a coil could affect compasses in the same way as did magnets, and that dissimilar metals could produce electricity. Her understandings of electric motors and the role of magnets play in their operation, and her knowledge of electromagnets, had also developed further. However, in the final analysis her views about the induction effect of magnetism developed in alternative ways and she employed multiple models to explain the induction process. For Hazel, the foremost learning experiences included: the process by which dissimilar metals could produce electricity; the deleterious effects of magnets on television screens; the effects magnets have on compasses; and the fact that heat repels magnets. This is exemplified by the following excerpt from her finalintervi ew: D Think about the whole experience that you've gone through in terms of me talking to you, making the map, the science centre, then the activities. Think back to before I came. List for me 2 or 3 things which you think you've learnt. Ha I think I've learntabout the copper and iron, the copper and zinc; about the TVs being ruined by magnets; I've learntabout electricity making compasses go funny. I think. ..oh, and that heat repels magnets. Hazel's knowledge and understandings, like other case study students discussed in this chapter, developed and transformed in multiple and complex ways, including combinations of emergence, recontextualisation, reorganisation, merging, progressive differentiation, and personal theory building. Among all of Hazel's changes in understanding, her merging of multiple, semi-independent ideas were learning processes which stand out among the case studies investigated. 313 6.6 The Case Study of Heidi 6.6.1 Heidi's background and characteristics Heidi, like Roger, was considered to be one of the more interesting students investigated in this study, due to the fact that she was seen to actively employ existing models of understanding in the service of her construction of new understandings. The following excerpt from her teacher's interview described Heidi as a "thinker," and one who was classed as being a capable student in the areas of science and mathematics. Heidi's a thinking, well balanced, overall achiever. Her abilities are slightly more skewed towards literacy rather than mathematics or science, although she was quite capable of understanding and retaining mathematics and science concepts, and process skills once they had been presented through teaching episodes. Heidi's also very athletic child with a good sense of humour. Analysis of Heidi' s initial concept map (Figure 6.18) and interview transcript showed that she possessed many scientifically accuate understandings of the topics of electricity and magnetism, in addition to some interesting alternative views. Figure 6.17 details Heidi' s CPI and some of her identified knowledge transformations interpreted by the researcher. Throughout the following discussion of Heidi's knowledge and understandings, selected excerpts from her interviews will illustrate some of the RLEs from which her understandings originated and developed. 314 6.6.2 Heidi's pre-visit knowledge and understandings 6. 6.2.1 Heidi's initialun derstandings of magnets and magnetism It was apparent from Heidi's initial concept map and interview that her understandings of the properties and application of magnets and electricity were detailed and, for the most part, consistent with accepted scientific views. Figure 6.17, Phase A, details Heidi' s views of magnets and magnetism; including: magnets are made of metal (1.5A), magnets attract and repel (1.1A, 1.2A), magnets stick to refrigerators (1.6A), magnets can attract certain types of metal (1.3A), and magnets attract metal objects because of magnetism (1.8A). Heidi also viewed magnetism as a force that was both positive and negative (1.23A), believing that this was the same as positive and negative electrical charge. Furthermore, she asserted that magnetism and electricity were somehow related through heat (1.21A) and that magnets were used in motors (2.3A). The following excerpt illustrates a variety of Heidi' s understandings: D Okay, good, let's have a look at your map, what are the, the two terms that I gave you, urn, in this map [pre-visit map, Figure 6.18] that I asked you to make were "electricity" and "magnetism," how did you link the two? H Urn, well, when, urn, something to do with heat I think, urn, and magnetism urn, with some kinds of metal or electricity, metal will conduct the electricity. D What about these concepts "negative" and "positive" - tell me about those [Researcher refers to Heidi's pre-visit concept map, Figure 6.18]. H Urn, magnetism is a pull created by something, urn, that is negative and is positive. It can be found negative one thing and positive in another. D Mmm. H Urn, and magnetism, urn, sits on to your fridge and magnets, magnetism, magnets stick on to your fridge through magnetism. D That's very good, let's look at this link you've got here, "magnetism can be created by energy." Can you tell me a bit more about that? H Urn well, urn, the if you have, urn, like a motor, to make an electric motor, urn, and you have magnetism that pulls the, urn, something around. D So an electric motor has magnets in it. H Yeah. D I see. H And it's that's it. 315 1.0A Properties of Magnets 1.1 A Magnets can attract 1.2A Magnets can repel 1.3A Magnets can attract certain types of metal 1.5A Magnets are made of metal 1.6A Magnets stick to refrigerators 1.18A Magnets attract m etal objects because of magnetism Alternative views 1.21 A Magnetism and e lectricity are somehow related through heat 1.23A Magnetism is a fo rce that is positive and negative 2.0A Earth's Magnetic F ield, Compasses, and Application of Magnet� 2.3A Magnets are used in motors 3.0A Properties of Elec tricity 3.1 A Electricity makes th ings work! Powers electrical appliances and lights 3.2A Electricity flows through wires Figure 6. 17. Heidi's CPI and knowledge transformation exemplars. D Okay, so I'm just trying to figure this out for myself, can be created by energy, so the electricmotor. H That's the only link. D So that well the electric motor can make magnetism, is that what you're saying? H Urn, magnetism makes the electric motor work cause it's, the magnetism is making energy. D Okay, how did you know that? H Urn, because Mr. Wallace he was explaining to us last term about a science project he showed us a video of the boy doing, demonstrating this, and his was an electric motor. 6. 6.2.1 Heidi's initial understandings of electricity Heidi's general understandings of the properties of electricity included: electricity makes things work and powers electrical appliances (3.1A), flowed through wires (3.2A), and was a form of energy (3.17 A). She also regarded that electricity had positive and negative forces which are the same as magnetic positive and negative forces (3.26A) and expressed some tentative understandings about the role of electricity in generating a magnetic effect (3.3A). Heidi understood that conductors allowed electricity to pass through them (3.10A), while insulators did not (3.12A), and provided examples of insulating and conducting materials (3.4A, 3.SA, 4.16A). She also appreciated that electricity had the potential to kill people through a process of electrocution (3.6A). Heidi knew that lightning and static electricity were forms of electricity (4.1A, 4.2A), and described the processes by which they could be produced, i.e. static electricity could be produced by rubbing a balloon with a cloth and/or combing your hair (4.4A), while lightning was produced when water droplets rub together (4.9A). Common to both these procedural understandings was the key role that friction played in the electricity generating process (4.11A). Heidi also understood that fossil fuels could be burnt to produce electricity (4.6A) at power stations (4.1 SA). The association of friction with the production of electricity in the forms of lightning and static electricity were detailed and centred about a model which regarded water droplets rubbing together producing friction which in turn produced 317 lightning. This partially accuate understanding was developed from a RLE of watching a television program about lightning. These concepts later proved to be reinforced by subsequent experiences, the understanding strongly influencedher construction of knowledge and development of a personal theory in alternative ways. Her views of lightning production are encapsulated by the following excerpt from her initial interview: D Tell me about what you have here on your concept map [Researcher referring to concept map shown in Figure 6.18]. H Okay, urn, thunder is made by lightning, and lightning is made by electricity, urn and lightning is, urn, is created by two drops of water rubbing together and it's called friction and that creates urnlightning cause of the, urn, force, the negative and positive force to get the, makelightning, they jump in a bolt to the ground, urn,and fri ction creates static electricity in your hair, like when you run a plastic comb through your hair, that can create, urn, static electricity with sparks and stuff, urn, and, urn, haircan be made, can make static electricity if rubbed against aballoon, there's friction which then creates electricity." D Lightning is made by two drops of water rubbing together? H Yep. D What's happening there? H Well, in the cloud two drops of water are just next to each other and they're just like getting rubbed against each other and that makes electrons form, so then thecloud is zapped on a cloud like from the bottom of the cloud to the top of another cloud, and if it, like, doesn't do that, it'll go to the ground. D How'd you know that? H TV show. Figure 6.18 details Heidi's pre-visit RGCM concept map. 318 "�!" :')�.'L ean 00 create QID ba ...... Ied by burning _I � at potNer stations i$ apu1!_by somaIoree Ih& negative __ng f"l'$llMl tt """ OO foond In(sic) is o ",,,,, '" ttict -,,.,..Y<� .. �ttrad 011t$:in 4'p�Zi of con work I. -you "- 11ghISW_ oUl o!;youwculddleU were plastio Figure 6. 18. Heidi's pre-visit researcher-generated concept map. 6.6.3 Heidi's post-visit knowledge and understandings Heidi's experiences subsequent to the Phase A data collection, including her visit to the Sciencentre, appear to have resulted in a number of subtle changes in her understandings of electricity and magnetism. These changes were mostly classified as being emergence and recontextualisation of pre-existing understandings which appear to have affirmed and minimally refined her personal models and ideas about electricity and magnetism. Newly identified ideas and concept changes are represented in Phase B of Heidi' s CPI (Figure 6.17) and include: 1.2B - Changing the polarity of an electric motor will change the direction; 1.19B - Both positive and negative are required to make a magnet; 1.20B - Two positives will not produce a magnetic force; 1.21B - Two negatives will produce a repulsive force; 2.7B - Compasses point to the magnetic poles of the Earth; 2.8B - The magnetic north and south poles of the Earth, plus Earth's gravity all help magnetism work; 3.2B - Electricity is moving electrons; 3.3B - Electricity is made of lots of electrons; 3.5B - Water is a conductor of electricity; 3.6B - Conductors carry electricity / Non conductors do not carryelectricity; 3.15B - The positive and negative associated with electricity is the same as the positive and negative associated with magnetism; and 4.3B - Electricity is created by friction; 4.20B - Friction creates lightning. 6. 6.3.1 Personal theory of magnetic attraction and repulsion: Emergence of understandings From the analysis of the Phase A data sets, it was evident that Heidi possessed in part alternative understandings which described magnetism in terms of a positive and negative force (Concept 1.23A). During the post-visit interview, Heidi was asked to elaborate on her understandings about positive and negative forces and their association with magnets, which appeared on her post-visit concept map (Figure 6.19): D Let's have a look at this one: "Magnetism is the force of ...these forces: positive and negative." [Researcher refers to links between "magnetism", 320 "positive," and "negative," on Heidi's post-visit concept map, Figure 6.19) You had that in your old map (Figure 6.18). H Yeah. D Tell me about this - so this positive and negative force is forces on a magnet? H Well, a magnet had one of them and the other thing, like the fridge, has the other. D So a magnet has either a positive or negative force ... and whatever it's sticking to has the opposite. H If they have the same - if they have the same - if they both have positive, they just stay still. Like, if you had two magnets which were positive and positive they'd stay still, but if you have, like, two negative, they'd repel. I think it's the other way round. D So if I had two positives together, there'd be effectively no force is what you're saying. H Yep. D And then if I had two negatives together, they would ... H Repel... they'd push away. D So in order for a magnet to stick to metal, it has to have positive force or a negative force. H Yes. D But the thing that it's sticking to has to have the opposite? H Yeah. D But two positives together, there's effectively no force. H Yep. D But two negatives pushes away? H Yeah. D How did you know that? H Urn, well, I got this science book at Easter, it's really a basic one and I was just looking through to see if there was anything good for my science project, and I just saw somebody doing an experiment. Heidi possessed a unique set of understandings which described a magnet's abilities to attract and repel objects, akin to a model of static electricity, i.e., a magnetic force will attract to another object of opposite charge. Of particular interest in Heidi's model was the view that positive and positive forms of magnetism brought close together would result in no net force, however, a negative and negative form would result in repulsive forces. Heidi's model of attraction and repulsion were interpreted by the researcher to be a pre-existing set of understandings which had emerged as a result of some combination of experiences since the Phase A data collection, and is represented by Transformation #1 [Emergence, P.D.]. 321 Other examples of the emergence of Heidi' s pre-existing understandings included Concepts 3.2B - Electricity is moving electrons, and 3.3B - Electricity is moving electrons, which were represented by Transformation #2 [Emergence, P.D.]. Here, Heidi provided further elaborations about her concepts of electricity flowing through wires (Concept 3.2A), but it appears that these understanding were likely held prior to the commencement of the study. In addition, Heidi described water as a material which was a conductor of electricity, in her further elaboration of electrically conducting substances; Transformation #3 [Emergence, P.D.]. 6. 6.3.2 Heidi's understanding of electric motors: Progressive differentiation of ideas Heidi's understanding of the relationship between magnetism and electricity appear to have been changed in subtle ways as a result of her Sciencentre experiences. Analysis of the Phase A data sets suggested that Heidi believed that magnets were used in motors (Concept 2.3A) and that there were some associations between electricity and magnetism somehow related though the concept of heat (Concept 1.21A). Heidi also knew about electromagnets in terms of electricity being required to produce a magnetic effect in the devices (Concept 3.3A). These concepts and the relationships that exist between magnetism and electricity appear to have been changed in subtle ways, but still seem to be understandings which were not completely differentiated in Heidi's mind. The following excerpt from Heidi's post visit interview describe her experiences with the Electric Motor exhibit. D Good. Let's look at this one: "Magnetism can create electricity" [Researcher refers to Heidi's post-visit concept map, Figure 6.8]. Tell me about that. H Magnetism creates electricity because if you have, urn, like a motor and you put magnets in it, it can help - like it rotates - like at the Sciencentre they had the one that rotates the coils round and round and round, which generated electricity. D So is that how you knew that? From the Sciencentre exhibit H Yes. It helped me understand it a bit better. 322 This excerpt suggests that Heidi's understandings of electricity and magnets appears to have developed further since Phase A of the study, however, her close association of electric motors and electric generators appears to be differentiated. This change in understanding is represented by Transformation #4 [P.D.] (Figure 6.17), and illustrated by the development of Concepts 1.21A, 2.3A, and 3.3A. 6. 6.3.3 Heidi'sfriction makes electricity model recontextualised ill addition to the free choice interaction with exhibit elements at the Sciencentre, Heidi also participated in the live science show where a facilitator demonstrated a wide variety of scientific phenomena relating to magnetism and electricity. Among the many components of the live program were demonstrations about static electricity phenomena, including the production of static electricity with a Van de Graaff generator and by rubbing cloth over ebony and glass rods. Analysis of the post-visit data sets suggests that Heidi had recontextualised and reinforced her understandings of her "friction makes electricity" model from a number of experiences. The following excerpt illustrates Heidi's elaborations of her model in terms of her experiences at the live Sciencentre show, in addition to other practical examples which reaffirm her model of electricity generation. D Yeah. Righteo. This is good stuff. "Electricity is created by friction. Friction creates electrons." [Researcherrefers to Heidi's post-visit concept map, Figure 6.19]. Tell me about that. H Urn, well, like, when two things rub together, like, if you have, like, synthetic carpet and rub your joggers on it, it creates, like, little bits of electrons that run through your body and if you touch somebody, just with the tip of your finger, it sort of zaps and that's a small amount of electrons that's running through. D That go out of you? H Yeah.Like at the Sciencentre with the guy making static electricity when he rubbed those rods with the cloth. D And what do electrons have to do with electricity? H Electricity is like lots and lots of electrons (inaudible word) electrons like - they're like little ones all floating around. 323 Further evidence of the reinforcement of Heidi's "friction makes electricity" model can be seen in terms of her interactions with one of the Sciencentre, in-gallery explainers. The following dialogue was recorded from a radio microphone attached to Heidi, designed to capture her audio conversations during the course of her free choice interactions with the magnetism and electricity exhibits. The dialogue, recorded at the Hand Batteryexhibit between Heidi and an explainer (E), shows the explainer provided guidance concerningthe ways to interact with the exhibit. The text in italics represents the actions of both Heidi and the explainer. Heidi is interacting with the Hand BatteryEx hibit with afriend. During the course of her interactions another explainer joins in the interactions. The explainer provides instructions fo r the correct use of the exhibit. E Put your two centre ones [your hands on the two centre plates] or your two outside ones together [your hands on the two outer plates] to make a circuit... That's it! Heidifollows the explainer's instructions to produce a small electric current E That's more [milliamp] than I can get! Try the two middle ones ... See the needle [on the ammeter] goes the other way. E Now ... rub you hands together to get a bit of friction and then blow on your palms. E Looks at that ... 1.5 [milliamps] just like that. H They have this [exhibit] at Underwater World [theme park / aquarium] . Heidi leaves the exhibit and her fr iend continues to interact with the exhibit. Interestingly, the explainer tells Heidi to "rub your hands together to get a bit of friction," before placing them on the copper and aluminium plates. The goal of this instruction was persumably to provide cleaner contact between Heidi' s hands and the metal plate thus producing greater electrical current from the connection of the dissimilar metals. However, it was likely that these instructions had served to strengthen Heidi's associations with rubbing, friction, and electricity production, entrenching alternative understandings of the phenomena the exhibit was intended to portray. 324 The Sciencentre experiences which contributed to the development of Concept 4.3B - Electricity is created by friction, in the light of her prior understanding of the "friction makes electricity" model are represented by Transformation #5 [Recontextualisation, P.D.] (Figure 6.5). These understandings were later seen to have a profound effect on the way in which Heidi interpreted and explained the processes of electricity generation in the induction PV A, and will be the focus of further discussion in Section 6.6.4.1. Figure 6.19 details Heidi's post visit RGCM describing her understandings of the topics. 6.6.4 Heidi's post-activity knowledge and understandings Heidi's experiences subsequent to the Phase A data collection, including her visit to the Sciencentre and participation in the PV As, appeared to have resulted in a number of changes to her understandings of electricity and magnetism. Some of these changes were identifiedas being ones which have helped develop detailed personal theories. Newly identifiedideas and concept changes are represented in Phase C of Heidi's CPI (Figure 6.17) and included: I.13C Positive and negative force, gravity, and the south and north magnetic poles all help make magnetism; 1.14C Gravity can create magnetism; 2.6C Multimeters can test the + or - polarity of a magnet; 2.7C The magnetic north and south poles plus the Earth's gravity all help magnetism work; 3.2C Electricity flowingthrough a coil of wire will produce heat; 4.2C Ammeters/meters measure electricity; 4.5C A big coil of wire spinning in a magnet will produce electricity at the power station; 4.7C Power supplies make/supply electricity; 4.13C Aluminium, copper and moisture "help" the flowof electricity; 4.22C A magnetic field rubbing against a coil of wire creates electrons that create electricity; 4.23C When a magnetic field rubs against a coil it creates friction and this creates electricity; and 4.24C Electrons are created by friction. The following sections detail some of Heidi' s developing personal theories and understandings of electricity and magnetism in the light of her prior experiences and knowledge. 325 are m$ci?out of r'lroof theseforces are canedfepellers because the repa! ______can create ", magnet � { Figure 6. 19. Heidi' s post-visit researcher-generated concept map. 6. 6.4.1 Heidi's theory of induction: Application and recontextualisation of personal theory Heidi participated in a subsequent PV A which aimed to develop further, and reinforce students' knowledge of, the links between the domains of electricity and magnetism, by producing a small electrical current using a moving magnetic field, a copper solenoid and a microammeter to measure the current. Students observed the process of connecting the various pieces of equipment and the technique for replicating the generation of the small current, before being permitted to conduct the experiment for themselves in groups of three or four. Following the activity, students completed a guided worksheet which required them to record, in writing, the effects they observed and provide an explanation for what they believed to be the cause of the observed effects. The following excerpt from her final interview encapsulates Heidi' s explanation of the production of electricity: H Oh well, we had to - well, the firstone we had to make - create electricity with a coil, and the coil was a bit of copper wire wound arounda plastic tubing. And at each end a bit of wire came off. We connected that with alligator clips to the multimeter [microammeter], and that measured the electricity. And you put the iron bolts in the middle, and you got magnet and rubbed it over thetop and that made - that was the magnetic field- the bar magnet we were making [a magnetic field], and when you rubbed that over the top of the coil, it creates electricity. D So tell me what was going on with that iron core again? H Well, the magnet fieldis rubbing against the copper wire which was creating electrons that create electricity. D So the magnet actually created electrons from the wires? H Yeah,from t he wire. D Now, explainto me what is actually making the electricity. You tell me about waving this magnet in front of a coil. What is actually causing electricity to reproduce? H The magnetic field is rubbing against the coil and that's creating friction and that creates electricity. And the coil - it goes into the coil and goes into the multimeter. D So the magnetic field creates friction in the wire. H Yes. D And that makes electricity. H Yes. 327 The concept of "rubbing" emerges prominently in Heidi's conversation suggesting that this concept is strongly associated with the electricity generation process. Later during the interview, the researcher probed further about the cognitive links between Heidi' s original understanding of rubbing, friction and electricity and the experiences with the PV As. D "Lightning" - you've got these two drops of water. A lot of people [in your class] have been saying this. Where'd you get this idea about the two drops of water rubbing together making friction which makes electricity? H TV? D From the TV. Was it something in class? H No. D Cause other people have mentioned that. H Well, it's a show that we sometimes watch in class. I was at home one day and I just watched it cause I was sick and it was on and that was on about it. D So it's friction of these two drops rubbing together which makes electricity. H Yes. D Now you mentioned to me in the post-visit activities that it was the friction of the magnetic force on the wire which makes electricity. Is this the same thing? H Yeah. D Same sort of thing? H Yeah,and that friction and that creates electricity, and that's why that works. It is apparent that Heidi equated the waving action of the magnet over the solenoid with the rubbing actions associated with the production of static electricity, lightning, and other forms of electricity production she described throughout the study. It was the view of the researcher that Heidi had readily constructed new meaning for the effects she observed in the induction PV A by resorting to an existing and developing model of electricity production (Sections 6.6.2.2 and 6.6.3.3). In the absence of other explanations, Heidi constructed new understandings using her developing "friction makes electricity" model and formulated a coherent theory which to her was generalis able to several situations. These changes are represented by Transformation #5b [Recontextualisation, P.D., P.T.B.] on Figure 6.5. Incorporated as an integral part of her extended model of electricity production was the association of the magnet in the process. This additional development in her 328 personal theory is depicted by Transformation #6 [P.D] on Figure 6.17, in which Concept 1.2B was transformed in the light of the PV A experiences. 6. 6.4.2. Personal theory of Magnetism and Gravity: Emergence of understandings Heidi also described her understandings of a set of relationships which she believed existed between magnetism and gravity. These notions first appeared on Heidi's post-visit concept map (Figure 6.19) as an undifferentiated cluster of concept nodes including, "gravity," "South magnetic pole," and "North magnetic pole," linked to the concept of magnetism. Her description of these understandings during the post-visit interview merely linked these concepts in a way which suggested that they grew from one another, a view also depicted on the post-visit concept map. Heidi's post-activity concept map (Figure 6.20) shows more differentiation of the ideas which link these concepts. The following excerpt from her post-activity interview demonstates this: D Let me ask you some questions to get some clarification. You've got here, "The south magnetic pole, north magnetic pole, and gravity" [Researcher refer to Heidi's post-activity concept map, Figure 6.20]. What's the relationship between these three? H Oh ... um, the urn, South magnetic pole is near Antarctica and the north magnetic pole is the North pole - well, not the north pole, it's like near - it' s not the actual middle. And they, like, they attract - like they have - like the gravity makes them - urn, if you have a compass, a magnet will go towards the north pole because it's a magnet and that's magnetic, and gravity helps. D So there's some relationship between gravity and magnetism, is what you're saying? H Yeah. D What is the relationship between gravity and magnetism? H Gravity helps magnetism like be magnetic, like, pull. If you didn't have it, it'd just floatround. Heidi appears to have some strong associations between gravitational forces and magnetic forces, believing that one "helps" the other in attracting things to the Earth. Concepts l.13C - Positive and negative force, gravity, and the South and North magnetic poles all help make magnetism, 1.14C - Gravity can create magnetism, and 2.7C - The magnetic North and South poles plus the Earth's gravity 329 all help magnetism work, represent both emergence of previously held ideas and the progressive differentiation of Concept 2.8B - The magnetic North and South poles of the Earth, plus Earth's gravity all help magnetism work. These change are depicted by Transformation #7 [Emergence, P.D.], on Figure 6.17. Figures 6.20 details Heidi's post-activity RGCM illustrating her understanding of these concepts. 6.6.5 Summary of Heidi's knowledge construction In summary, Heidi, like Roger, developed sophisticated understandings and there is evidence of thinking at an abstract level resulting from her Sciencentre and PVA experiences. It appears that Heidi's model for electricity production, initially contextualised in terms of lightning and static electricity had begun to develop in ways inconsistent with the scientificallyaccepted view. This divergence appears to have its origins in some Sciencentre experiences including her interpretation of the production of static electricity in the science show and her experiences with the explainer at the Hand Batteryexhibit. These experiences had apparently caused her to generalise the processes of electricity production in terms of her "friction makes electricity model." It was also evident that Heidi, in the process of seeking to provide a logical rationale to account for her PV A experiences, has developed a personal, coherent theory of electricity and magnetism to describe the production of electricity in terms of her friction model. These processes of personal theory building were akin to that of Roger's knowledge construction, in that existing and developing models were employed to further construct and develop more detailed personal interpretations of scientific phenomena. Much of Heidi's knowledge construction appears to be emergence, recontextualisation of ideas, with the most notable changes being seen in terms of the development of her personal theories of electricity production. 330 cm� ______� ;>� �-.-� ($ ("� th =>�'-'>." 'M��f i " +"" I1eIpll1elloWoI - -: ' " - "." . � <�.. ;; . , . .: ,,; b - - �,.�� __ a _.ma�field rubS"fIIIIISl 8 copper «>11 "- Jjil--- and1l1s_ eIodrk:itY ma "(�;3) -Gib) m.k�JB) m . . .. < . :'. �· > · : � ' �' <-�;·�·�:;�:·:..· ;·:�'.. i..>:. ··:·.:· ·· ·. > . _be_bya ...... �_lIlI>bIt>9inYO« . . ;...... •...... i1alf-1I1s1._ �.-� Figure 6. 20. Heidi'spost-activity researcher-generated conceptmap. 6.7 Summary Overall, each of the five case study students could be seen to have hislher own character of knowledge construction, within the confines of this study and the experiences it provided. Josie was regarded by the researcher to be a "low level" constructor in comparison to other case study students. Most of her changes in knowledge and understanding were regarded as being declarative in nature. In many instances, her identified concepts and concept changes were interpreted to be small and incremental in nature, comprised weak restructuring of knowledge and minimal levels of progressive differentiation and personal theory building. Andrew and Heidi were regarded by the researcher as being "personal theory builders," given their tendency to build models, on a number of occasions during the study, to account for their observations and experience. Frequently, their models were seen to be recontextualised and employed in the service and explanation of other subsequent experiences (c.f. Section 6.2.4.1 and Section 6.6.4.1). Roger was regarded as being a "personal theory builder", but also one who seemed to go beyond this level of knowledge construction, in so far as he seemed able to employ multiple PTB models in the service and development of more elaborate personal theories. The data analysis suggest that at times he seemed not able to reconcile the interaction of his multiple model (c.f. Section 6.4.4.1), while on other occasions the interaction of multiple models served to develop elaborate and scientifically acceptable explanations (c.f. Section 6.4.4.2). Hazel, like every other case study student, showed signs of many gradual and incremental changes to her knowledge and understanding, but seems to attempt prematurely to integrate her developing models (merging) in order to explain her observations (c.f. Section 6.5.4.1). The results of this seem to have resulted in tenuous and muddled understandings of the domain. The character of these students' knowledge construction represents only that interpreted in the context of this study, and may not exhibit the same characteristics in other experiential contexts or topics of study. 332 The interpretation of students' knowledge construction processes, strongly attest to the fact the new knowledge and understandings are developed and shaped by prior knowledge and understanding. Furthermore, the character of the knowledge construction processes are highly individual and idiosyncratic in nature. No two students represented in this study developed their knowledge and understandings in the same way(s). Having described an overview of the data in Chapter Five, and characterised in detail the development of knowledge and understandings of five students here in Chapter Six, Chapter Seven will conclude and review the overall outcomes of this study. 333 Chapter Seven Conclusions and Implications 7.1 Introduction The review of the literature detailed in Chapter Two demonstrated that very few research investigations, in the fields of visitor and museum studies, had focused on the processes of learning, the relationship of visitors' prior knowledge to the learning processes, or the broader picture of visitor learning with respect to subsequent museum-based experiences. Furthermore, studies which considered these areas of study in a unified and coherent manner were non-existent. The outcomes of this study, and in particular, the outcomes presented in Chapters Five and Six, demonstrate clearly that the processes of learningare complex and idiosyncratic in nature; the construction of knowledge and understanding is heavily contextualised in the light of prior knowledge and understandings; and that students' science centre experiences help build knowledge which, in turn, affects the character and nature of knowledge and understanding built in experiences subsequent to their visit. These broad outcomes, in addition to other findings, are the focus of discussion in the following sections. The structure of this chapter deals with the outcomes of this study in several ways. First, the nature and character of learning as a product of the Sciencentre, PV A, and other experiences are described, in fulfilment of Research Objective (A). Second, the nature and character of learning as a process emergent from the Sciencentre, PV A, and other experiences will be described, in fulfilment of Research Objective (B). Third, the principles for the development of PV As will be reviewed in the light of the outcomes of the study, in fulfilmentof Research Objectives (C) and (D). Finally, implications of this study for teachers, 335 museum educators, and the science education community will be considered in terms of their respective practices and professional responsibilities. 7.2 Knowledge and Understandings Emergent from Sciencentre and PV A Experiences Chapter Five dealt primarily with Research Objective (A), detailed in Section 3.2 and restated as follows: (A) to describe and interpret students ' scientific knowledge and understandings of electricityand magnetism: i. prior to a visit to a science centre, ll. fo llowing a visit to a science centre, iii. fo llowing post-visit activities related to their science centre experiences. It was evident that students in this study possessed a large number and wide diversity of concepts relating to the topics of electricity and magnetism as revealed and interpreted by the researcher prior to their visit to the Sciencentre. Broadly speaking, students' knowledge could be categorised "into four main groups: 1) Properties of magnets, 2) Earth's magnetic field,compas ses, and applications of magnets; 3) Properties of electricity; and 4) Types of electricity, electricity production, and applications of electricity. An interpretive analysis of knowledge types contained within these categories indicated that most of their understandings of the topics were declarative in nature, accounting for 83% (n=217) of the interpreted concepts, while only 13% (n=3 1) were deemed to be procedural in nature, and 4% (n=lO) contextual. This suggests that while students held numerous factual understandings of the topics, relatively few detailed understandings concerning the "whys" and "hows" of the properties and applications of electricity and magnetism. An examination of students' pre-visit concept maps and interview transcripts indicated that students' knowledge of the topics was well differentiated, that is, the students were able to describe many different aspects about the properties and nature of magnetism and electricity. However, their knowledge seemed to be poorly integrated, demonstrating few links between students' concepts of electricity and 336 magnetism. As a consequence of this low level of integration, knowledge and understandings of scientific theories and models, which could account for the properties of magnets and electricity, were largely absent. It was clear from the overall analysis of the Phase B and C data sets presented in Chapter Five, that students underwent numerous changes in their knowledge and understandings resulting from their Sciencentre, PVA, and other subsequent experiences. In both these Phases, students' concepts and concept changes appeared to emerge into the same four categories identifiedin Phase A. Interpretation of the Phase B data sets suggested that many students had developed many additional and modifiedunderstandings as a result of their Sciencentre and other experiences subsequent to the Phase A data collection. Much of the change in knowledge and understanding could be characterised by 1) the addition of new declarative knowledge, i.e., observational facts and recollections; 2) progressive differentiation of their prior knowledge; and 3) the emergence and recontextualisation of their pre-existing understandings. Only a few students showed evidence of the development of the personal theories or models which could account for their empirical observations of the scientific phenomena observed. Similarly, only a small number of students appeared to develop increased conceptual links between their understandings of the magnetism and electricity domains. Thus, most of the learning emergent from the Sciencentre experiences appears to be gradual, incremental, and assimilative in nature, in keeping with a human constructivist view of learning. An analysis of the knowledge types interpreted from Phase B suggests that 68% were declarative in nature, 26% procedural, and 6% contextual. These statistics affirm that only a fraction of the identified knowledge changes could be classified as being high order. This observation is, in some regards, consistent with the views of Wellington (1990), who regards science centre experiences as contributing mostly to the development of declarative knowledge. However, as will be discussed in Section 7.4, this declarative knowledge was powerful in shaping subsequent learning. 337 The post-visit activity experiences of Phase C appear to have transformed students' knowledge and understanding of electricity and magnetism in numerous ways. First, the PV A experiences seem to have been associated with the development of a large number and wide diversity of new and modifiedco ncepts. Second, most of the students appear to have increased connections among their concepts of magnetism and electricity, developing understandings which link the topics in terms of their mutual production of each other. Third, most significant among the knowledge transformations were student development of theories and models which were constructed to provide explanations for their observations of Sciencentre, PV A, and other personal experiences. These also included a number of alternative understandings, but they were seen and interpretedby the researcher as being evidence of progression in understanding and development of detailed personal theories and conceptions of topic domains. An examination of students' post-activity concept maps suggested that their knowledge was more interconnected and integrated compared with their pre- or post-visit knowledge states. Interestingly, of the changes identifiedfo llowing the PV A experience, the proportion of interpreted knowledge types was similar to the proportion of knowledge types developed following students' Sciencentre experiences - 64% declarative, 27% procedural, and 9% contextual knowledge. One explanation which may account for the fact that one-third of the changes were either procedural or contextual in nature, is that the Sciencentre and PV A experiences were largely hands-on in character. In summary, of the knowledge and understandings students developed as a result of their participation in the study, it was clear that I) students developed a large number and rich diversity of understandings; 2) Sciencentre experiences helped develop students' knowledge in ways which were, for the most part, not dramatic, but rather, gradual, assimilative and incremental in nature; and 3) PVA experiences that capitalised on students' Sciencentre experiences also helped develop knowledge in gradual, assimilative, and incremental ways but were more influential in helping students develop personal theory and more integrated understandings of the topics. 338 From the epistemological stance of the researcher (Section 1.2.2), any change in knowledge and understanding was regarded as learning. Since learning was regarded by the researcher to be both a product and a process, any mechanism which brought about such change was also regarded as learning. Section 7.3 describes these mechanisms and the character of knowledge construction in terms of the outcomes of Stage Three of the study. 7.3 Knowledge Construction: The Processes of Building U nderstandings The detailed description and interpretation of students' knowledge and understandings developed from the Sciencentre and post-visit activity experiences, have been reported in Chapter Six, in keeping with Part (B) of the research objective in Section 3.2 and restated as follows: (B) to describe and interpret the process by which students constructed their scientific knowledge and understandings of electricityand magnetism: i. prior to a visit to a science centre, ii. fo llowing a visit to a science centre, iii. fo llowing post-visit activities related to their science centre experiences This study confirms and reaffirms the key tenets of constructivist, and in particular human constructivist, views of knowledge construction, and the impact of context on learning as described by situated learning theorists. Specifically, the study strongly supports the views that: 1) Knowledge building processes are multiple, non-discrete, and frequently occur concurrently in the production of new or modified understandings. 2) Knowledge is uniquely structured and constructed by the individual; 3) The processes of knowledge construction are often gradual, incremental, and assimilative in nature; 4) Changes in conceptual understanding are interpreted and shaped in the 339 light of prior knowledge and understandings; and 5) Knowledge and understanding develop idiosyncratically, progressing and sometimes appearing to regress when compared with the scientifically accepted view. The following subsections consider each of these views in the context of the outcomes of the study. 7.3.1 The multiple processes of knowledge construction Chapters Five and Six have identified and described a number of forms of knowledge transformation which are the processes by which individuals' knowledge and understandings are constructed. The processes identified in this study included: 1) Emergence of ideas; 2) Recontextualisation of ideas; 3) Addition of concepts; 4) Weakening of concept connections; 5) Disassociation of ideas; 6) Progressive differentiation of ideas; 7) Merging of semi-independent concept domains; and 8) Personal theory building. Much of the character of these knowledge transformation processes have their basis in the theoretical foundations of knowledge construction previously described in Section 2.4. These processes were identified and interpreted by the researcher as the data sets were examined through the lenses of this theoretical framework and the epistemological framework described in Section 3.3. As a result, the processes of knowledge construction are interpreted in new and different ways. In a real sense, the researcher has recontextualised, progressively differentiated, and built personal theory, from this basis of the theoretical foundations of knowledge construction previously described in Section 2.4 and the experiences of this research. The following sub-sections summarise the character of each of the identified knowledge transformation processes. 7.3.1.1 Emergence and Addition These forms of transformation were characterised by concepts which were identified in Phases B or C of the study, but were in no way representative of, or similar to, concepts identified in previous phases. Two possible scenarios were 340 hypothesised which account for these newly emergent concepts. First, these concepts were pre-existing and may have become more readily retrievable for the student as a result of some experience or combination of experiences, such as the Sciencentre, PVA, probing interview, concept mapping activities, and/or some other undisclosed experiences. These subsequent experiences helped to reveal existing knowledge structures allowing them to emerge in later data collecting rounds. Second, new concepts may have been added to the cognitive structure through the process of addition (Posner et aI., 1982; Valsiner & Leung, 1994). Ultimately, the addition of new concepts is, in all likelihood, only partially new, since it is highly probably that students possessed previous concepts which in some way related to the development of the new concept. In this view, some addition knowledge transformations may be a form of progressive differentiation. 7. 3.1.2 Progressive Differentiation Students' knowledge could frequently be interpreted as changing in ways which could be directly linked with knowledge and understandings expressed in previous phases of the study. Specifically, the concepts students possessed became increasingly more varied in their character, more multifaceted, and/or conditional, as a result of experiences the students engaged in. This kind of knowledge transformation is an example of progressive differentiation (Ausubel et aI., 1978; Rumelhart & Norman, 1978). The process of progressive differentiation often subsumes the process of addition described previously. 7.3.1.3 Recontextualisation Sometimes a student's knowledge and understandings, identified and interpreted in previous phases, were seen to be recontextualised in the light of subsequent experiences. Often the differences interpreted in these recontextualised concepts were subtle, but nonetheless the concepts were considered to have been transformed. It could be argued that recontexualisation of conceptual understandings is also a form of progressive differentiation. However, its identification as a "separate" process seems to stand out in terms of there being no appreciable change 341 in the individual's understandings of the related concepts underpinning the recontexualistion of ideas. 7.3.1.4 Disassociation and weakening of conceptual connections Disassociation and weakening of conceptual connections were transformations which were rarely identifiedin the context of this study. Disassociation of ideas was characterised by changes in students' knowledge and understanding in ways which caused them no longer to believe or agree with a concept they previously held. Weakening of conceptual connections appears to represent early or primitive stages of disassociation, characterised by students becoming unsure or uncertain of concepts which they held more firmlyin previous phases. 7. 3.1.5 Merging Interpretation of student knowledge transformations sometimes involved the merging of semi-independent concept domains in order to provide explanation for observed phenomena. In these forms of transformation, two or more understandings, usually identified as models, which were not directly linked with each other in the conceptual sense (semi-independent), were understood to join and become connected or associated with one another in ways which saw the development of new understandings. Frequently, but not exclusively, the merging of understandings resulted in the development of explanations for phenomena which were considered to be alternative with respect to the accepted scientific view. 7.3.1.6 Development of Personal Th eories Most students in the study showed evidence of the development of personal, and at times coherent, theories to account for their experiences and empirical observations of electricity and magnetism phenomena from the Sciencentre, PV A, and other experiences. These types of transformation were characterised by connection of concepts which formed a model accounting for observed phenomena. On occasions, two or more personal theories or models interacted in ways which 342 developed grand or hybrid personal theories in a transformation process akin to merging. 7.3.2 The non-discrete, concurrent character of knowledge construction Among the identified transformations restated in Section 7.3 .1.1, emergence, recontextualisation, addition, and progressive differentiation of ideas were seen as occurring frequently among all twelve students participating in the study. However, disassociation of ideas, weakening of conceptual connections, merging of semi independent concept domains, and personal theory building, were processes which were seen to occur less frequently, and were not universally identifiablein every student. These processes were not discrete in their character, that is, they seemed to occur rarely in isolation or to the exclusion of other transformations. In fact, in most cases, knowledge construction was seen to develop as a combination of processes, i.e., recontextualisation and progressive differentiation of ideas, or progressive differentiation and personal theory building. Thus, the development of students' understandings involved multiple and complex knowledge transformations. These transformations were seen to develop across all three phases of the study, and could frequently be interpreted as being transformation within transformations, i.e., Transformation Xa followed by Transformation Xb. Thus, knowledge transformation processes were seen to occur within other knowledge transformation processes across the Phases of the study. 7.3.3 The unique and individual nature of knowledge construction Evident from the overview of data of the twelve students, and more specifically the in-depth case studies of Andrew, Josie, Roger, Hazel, and Heidi, was the highly individual nature of the knowledge and understandings they possessed and constructed through their Sciencentre, PV A, and other subsequent related learning experiences. The individual characteristics of knowledge were notable in three ways; 1) through the unique sets of concepts students possessed and developed; 2) 343 through the unique set of interconnections between those understandings; and 3) through the unique set and sequence of knowledge constructing processes seen to build students' knowledge. Overall, the combination of these ways of knowledge and knowledge construction provided identifiablecharacter to the knowledge builders themselves. The following sections will elaborate on each of these aforementioned unique characteristics of knowledge construction. 7. 3.3.1 Th e unique sets of concepts students possessed and develop ed No two students possessed the same overall set of concepts of the topics of electricity and magnetism, although there were many instances where students were deemed to possess the same subcategory concept. However, there were definite differences among the individual concepts which students held in terms of the way they contextualised their understandings and the word descriptors they used to describe their understandings. Ultimately, categorisation of students' concepts into fundamental categories and sub-categories was a means by which the overall complexity of students' knowledge and understanding could be managed and comprehended by the researcher and others. 7.3.3.2 Th e unique set of interconnections between students ' understandings No two students' knowledge integration and knowledge interconnections were the same. This was demonstrated by the characteristics of the interconnections of students' concept maps in all three phases of the study, and also in terms of the way they described their specificknowledge and understandings during the course of the interview. It was the view of the researcher that one of the essential attributes which constitutes and defines understanding for an individual is the way knowledge elements are interconnected (Section 2.4.1.2). Indeed, it is these interconnections with other knowledge elements which provide the meaning for each knowledge element. The uniqueness of the interconnections between concepts was particularly evident in terms of students' explanations of electricity and magnetism phenomena, and the development of the personal theories. 344 7.3.3.3 Th e unique set and sequence of knowledge constructing processes No two students procedurally developed their knowledge and understandings in exactly the same way, that is, the processes by which knowledge and understanding were developed were also unique to the individual. In addition to the fact that all students encountered their Sciencentre and PV A experiences with highly personal and different knowledge and understandings, they all had a unique set of experiences within the Sciencentre setting, in terms of the time they spent at exhibits, the order they encountered the exhibits, the social context within which they engaged with the exhibits, and the interpretations they made as a result of their own prior knowledge. Furthermore, their newly constructed knowledge, also unique in character, caused them to interpret very similar PVA experiences in different ways. For every student in the class, the experiences resulted in the construction of new knowledge and understandings, which were procedurally unique in terms of the resulting combination and sequence of transformations. Thus, it was possible to characterise the five case study students in particular ways: Josie as a "low-level constructor", Roger as a "personal theory builder", and so on. 7 .3 . 4 The gradual, incremental, and assimilative nature of knowledge construction The data analysis of all twelve students revealed that the development of their knowledge and understandings often progressed in ways which were consistent with the Human Constructivist view of learning (Section 2.4.2.5), that is, knowledge construction was often gradual, incremental, and assimilative in nature. This was typified by the addition of declarative facts, subtle changes in knowledge through the recontextualisation of knowledge, emergence of ideas, and progressive differentiation of understandings. Although these are regarded as "small scale" changes, their impact cannot be underestimated in terms of the development of more "grand scale" knowledge construction such as Personal theory building (PTB) or Merging of concepts and models of understanding. 345 7.3.5 The development of new understanding in the light of prior knowledge Perhaps the most powerfully demonstrated outcome of this study was that prior knowledge and prior experiences were significant factors in the construction and shaping of each individual's knowledge. This view is accepted and widely held among contemporary constructivists described in Section 2.4.2. Prior life experiences affected the knowledge and understandings which were developed from experiences in the Sciencentre, and in like manner, these newly developed knowledge and understandings had demonstrable and significant effects on knowledge that was constructed subsequently from the PV A experiences as described in the students' CPIs. In essence, all of the identifiedtransf ormations, with the possible exception of emergence, were regarded as being knowledge construction processes which build new knowledge and understandings from the old. The influencethat prior knowledge and understandings has on the ways in which subsequent understandings are developed cannot be underestimated. Even when Sciencentre or PVA-based experiences are presented in ways that are entirely scientificallyacceptable, and have been carefullycrafted in ways which are designed to help develop scientificallyacceptable understandings, the newly developed understandings can still develop in alternative ways. The explanation for this kind of development lies in that fact the knowledge develops as a result of the interaction of the new experiences and the individual's prior knowledge and understandings. The interaction results in outcomes which are highly difficultto predict; such is the idiosyncratic nature of knowledge and knowledge construction. 7.3.6 The idiosyncratic nature of knowledge construction The outcomes of this study illustrate that knowledge does not simply develop in a linear, sequential, or predictable fashion, that is, as a simple sequence of transformations which result in detailed and rich knowledge and understanding of 346 given topics. This view affirms the conclusions of Shymansky et al., (1993), discussed in Section 2.6.3, who concluded that knowledge does not simply increase in some kind of direct proportional way with experiences, but rather develops idiosyncratically, progressing and sometimes appearing to regress when compared against the backdrop of some objective set of knowledge truths. On some occasions, students' development of personal cohesive theories and models, which for them explained their empirical observation, were alternative with respect to the accepted scientificview . Despite this, such development was, in the epistemological view of the researcher, frequently seen as evidence of progression and development of knowledge and understanding in a conceptual trajectory (Driver et aI, 1994) tending towards scientifically acceptable understandings. In keeping with the views of Shymansky et al. (1993), the instantaneous view of a students' knowledge and understandings may be regarded as being alternative, due to the nature of knowledge construction and its highly idiosyncratic development involving progression and regression of understanding. 7.4 The Effect of Museum and PVA-based Experiences on Learning As previously pointed out by Falk and Dierking (1992, 1997), and Wellington (1990) (Section 2.6.1), visitors' experiences in museum-based settings may not immediately and directly contribute to the development of detailed conceptual understandings at the time of their museum visit. However, such experiences and the knowledge changes they produce may emerge weeks, months, even years later to interact with other subsequent experiences and may ultimately lead to the development of detailed understandings. This point is clearly illustrated in the context of the study, where it was concluded generally that, while the Sciencentre experiences resulted in many new and modifiedunderstand ings, few students built detailed personal understanding of the topics. However, the knowledge and understandings emergent from students' Sciencentre experiences 347 were highly influential in shaping and building the detailed understandings emergent from their PVA experiences. Similarly, seemingly insignificant learning experiences have the potential to affect dramatically the characterof students' developing knowledge and understandings. Broadly speaking, in this study, it appears that the Sciencentre experiences were responsible for the development of many new and modified understandings, which were highly influentialin the subsequent development of detailed understanding emergent from the PV A and other subsequent experiences students encountered. 7.5 Development of PV As The development of PV As in the context of this study was considered from the perspective of the teacher, whose goal was to develop and enhance further students' understandings of the topics of electricity and magnetism, by capitalising on their free-choice Sciencentre experiences with subsequent classroom-based hands-on activity. In practice, there are potentially many forms of PV A experiences, and multiple perspectives from which they might be developed. PV As may be as simple as a classroom-based discussion or as elaborate as follow-on project-based work. The development of such subsequent experiences may be underpinned by many and varied goals and objectives. The epistemological view of the researcher, supported by evidence from this study, is that PV A experiences have the potential to be highly influential and powerful knowledge building experiences. The original principles, which were developed as part of Research Objective (C) (Section 3.2), contain the overarching objective of the enhancement of student knowledge and understandings. The following sub-sections review these principles for the 348 development of educational effective PVAs in the light of the Stage Three research findings. 7.5.1 Review of the principles for the development of PVAs Chapter Four definedand described the theory-based principles for the development of classroom-based PV As, while Chapters Five and Six indirectly provided insights into the effectiveness of these principles. From the basis of the in sights gained from the data analysis reported in Chapters Five and Six, the principles are reviewed and refinedin keeping with Research Objective (D), Section 3.2 and restated below: (D) to review and refine the set of principles fo r the development of post-visit activities in the light of the findings of the main study. 7.5.1.1 Review of Principle 1 Post-visit activities should be built upon students ' experiences during their visit to the science centre in ways designed to consolidate and/or extend their understanding of the scientific themes portrayed in the galleries and their classroom-based curriculum. This theory based principle, founded upon the Ausubelian ideas of progressive differentiation, is a salient one given the outcomes of the study. There was evidence that the students' knowledge and understandings which were constructed from Sciencentre-based experiences, were indeed employed in the service of subsequent knowledge construction emergent from the PV A experiences. This occurred in a number of ways. First, in keeping with the views of Tennyson (1989) (Section 2.4.1.1), declarative knowledge gained from the Sciencentre experiences was subsequently used to form procedural and contextual-based understandings as a result of the PV A experiences. Second, pre-existing (Phase A) 349 and recently developed knowledge and understandings (Phase B), were frequently transformed in terms of the specific classroom-based PV As experiences, and sometimes resulted in detailed understandings of the topics. These examples of knowledge constructions are both consistent with, and reaffirming of, the progressive differentiation process and also of Principle 1. However, knowledge and understandings, which were interpreted in Phase A, prior to the Sciencentre visit, were also seen to be used in the service of knowledge construction emergent from the PVA experiences. To this end, the knowledge base from which progressive differentiation develops, originates not only from Sciencentre experiences as defined by Principle 1, but also from knowledge and understanding developed prior to the Sciencentre experiences. Thus Principle 1 should be modifiedto encompass the broader domain of pre-existing knowledge, understanding, and related learning experiences (RLEs) which should also be considered in the development of PVA experiences. Thus Principle 1, is modified as follows: Principle 1 : Post-visit activities should be built upon students ' experiences during their visit to the science centre and their pre-existing knowledge, understandings, and RLEs in ways designed to consolidate and/or extend their understanding of the scientific themes portrayed in the galleries and their classroom-based curriculum. 7.5.1.2 Review of Principle 2 Post-visit activities should be designed in the light of contextual constraints of implementation time, preparation time, availabilityof resources, and the fo rmal education context in which both students and teachers operate. In review, Principle 2 is entirely consistent with the purposes, goals, and outcomes of the main study. These purposes and goals were to further students' knowledge and understanding of, and inter-relationships between, the topics of electricity and magnetism, through classroom-based PVA experiences relevant to 350 students' Sciencentre experiences. It should, however, be recognised that the PVAs designed for the main study were but one form of PV A experiences which could have been developed and implemented. For example, PV A experiences designed to develop knowledge and understandings further, need not be confined to a classroom based or in-school activity. To this end, Principle 2 might be modifiedto purpose a less restrictive outcome and has been re-written as follows: Principle 2 : Post-visit activities should be designed in the light of contextual constraints of implementation time, preparation time, availabilityof resources, and the education contexts in which both students and teachers operate both in and outside the fo rmaleducation infrastructure. 7.5.1.3 Review of Principle 3 Post-visit activities should be related to the broader scientific principles underlying exhibits rather than the exhibits themselves. Principle 3 was entirely consistent with the purposes and outcomes of the main study. However, it is realised that the teacher's and PVA developer's goals may not always be congruent with intents inherent in Principle 3, which are purposed to help provide a broad-ranging set of experiences designed to help further students' general understandings of the science behind their museum experiences, and school curriculum in general. It is clear that there may be instances where the proposed and goals of the PV A development may lead teachers to focus on specific aspects of students' museum experiences in the service of their wider agenda. To these ends, Principle 3 might be modified toproduce a less restrictive outcome and has been re-written as follows: Principle 3 : Post-visit activities should be related to students ' museum experiences and to the broader school-based or other curriculum connected to those museum experiences. 351 7.5.1.4 Review of Principle 4 Post-visit activities should be designed so that they encourage the ja cilitator to respondflexibly to students ' emerging and developing understandings and avoid the PVAs being simply prescriptive in their approach. This principle is regarded as being applicable in all facilitator-Ied PVA experiences, and in the view of the researcher does not require modification. 7.6 Significancefo r Educators and Researchers This is an important study for teachers, students, museum educators, and the science education community, given the lack of research into the processes of knowledge construction in informal contexts and the uncertain role which post-visit activities play in the overall processes of learning. 7.6.1 The significance for teachers and museum educators The study provides evidence that the integrated series of activities resulted in students constructing and reconstructing their personal knowledge of science concepts and principles represented in the exhibits of the science centre they visited. These constructions and reconstructions were developed sometimes towards the accepted scientificunderstanding and sometimes in different and surprising ways. These interpreted constructions and reconstructions of students' knowledge, resulting from successive related experiences, are also supported by the proponents of spiral curricula (Brady, 1992; Bruner, 1960). Several prominent issues seem to emerge from the study. First, it is evident that students had their knowledge in the domain of electricity and magnetism transformed in many ways not specifically intended by those who planned the exhibits and/or post-visit activity experiences. 352 Many transformations were small and incremental in character and may seem, to experienced facilitators, to be minor and not noteworthy. However, such transformations have the strong potential to lead to changes in knowledge and understanding in profound ways. In all 12 case studies under investigation in the main study, students experienced numerous small changes in their knowledge and understanding of electricity and magnetism. Many of these changes were of a form which would probably not be detected by traditional classroom-based assessment techniques typically used by teachers to assess student knowledge. Some changes were more evident following the Sciencentre visit, where students encountered a wide diversity of science-related experiences. These findings add further evidence to the fact the students visiting science centres and like facilities have experiences which change their knowledge and in ways consistent with accepted scientific understandings. Other transformations resulting from the science centre and PV A experiences are seemingly more consistent and substantive in light of the intended messages of the exhibits and PV A experience. Regardless of these facts, it appears that these transformations, whether intended, or unintended from the perspective of the developers, ultimately were powerful influences on the knowledge which was later further constructed. Second, it seems that, despite the best intentions of exhibit designers and the planners of the post-visit activities to provide experiences which would help facilitate knowledge construction in ways which are consistent with the accepted scientific view, the experiences, in fact, helped transform knowledge in both consistent and inconsistent ways. This point underscores for teachers, and staff of science museums and similar centres, the importance of planning pre- and post-visit activities, not only to support the development of scientificconcept ions, but also to detect and respond to alternative conceptions that may be produced or strengthened during a visit to an informal learning centre. These final points make it even more important that additional research be undertaken in the areas of knowledge construction as a result of any form of PV A. 353 Third, the study amply demonstrates the power of PV A experiences in helping develop detailed understandings of topics encountered in science centre experiences. It suggests that, if teachers and museum educators have the goal of furthering students' knowledge and understanding of the science portrayed in science centres, then the incorporation of carefully crafted PV As, as part of the overall experience should be a priority. Fourth, consistent with the principles for development of PV As, museum educators, and exhibit and program developers should aim to make links with their exhibitions and program, to their target audiences' existing knowledge, understandings and interests. This study shows that oftentimes visitors will automatically make links to their own past experiences, sometimes making scientifically inappropriate connections and developing alternative understandings as a result. This was certainly the case with some of the exhibits at the Queensland Sciencentre, which were largelydecontextua lised and phenomenologically based. From a constructivist view, it behoves museum staff to provide appropriate contexts as an integral part of their exhibitions. An appropriate context will allow visitors to make links and connections more easily with their past experiences and understandings of the world. In doing so, visitors' experiences are likely to be more meaningful thus resulting in the development of enhanced knowledge and understandings. Helping visitors to make these more meaningful links can be achieved through research which investigates their knowledge, understandings, and interests prior to the development of exhibits, museum programs, and PV As. This type of informative research is commonly defined as "front-end evaluation." Finally, museum staff should think of visitors' museum experiences beyond the immediate museum experience itself, that is, they should recognise that the experiences of the museum are actively constructed and reconstructed after people 354 visit. To this end, museum exhibitions and programs should aim to provide links to subsequent experience visitors are likely to encounter. 7.6.2 The significance for researchers The significance of this study for educational researchers are several. First, in keeping with the conclusions of the review of the literature (Section 2.8), this study demonstrated that appropriate contemporary methodologies and epistemological views must be adopted in order to elucidate the detailed and complex character of learning. The qualitative, interpretative methodology employed in this research has been both powerful and fruitful in revealing the character and nature of learning emergent from informal and formal experiences. Future research which seeks to investigate the nature and character and learning should adopt similar approaches, and also broaden the definition of learning beyond the narrow scope of that traditionally delineated by the school-based curriculum and measured by traditional school-based assessment. Second, this study demonstrates and reaffirmsthe importance of prior knowledge in construction of subsequent knowledge and understanding. The power of an individual's knowledge base to influence and shape knowledge and understandings from future learning experiences should not be underestimated. Given the reported lack of attention (c.f. Section 2.8) that previous studies in the fields of informal learning and museum studies have paid to this variable, and the demonstrated importance of this factor that this study has shown, future studies need to give much greater attention to the influence of the prior knowledge of visitors to informal learning locations. Failure to do so will reduce the credibility of the assertions about learning products and processes that such studies can make. 355 Third, this research illustrates that learning is a continuous process, not solely emergent from any one experience or setting. Individuals reflectand incorporate their past knowledge, understandings, and experiences dynamically with current and subsequent experiences. The knowledge construction outcomes are frequently emergent days, weeks, and even years afterthe individual's experiences (Falk & Dierking, 1997; Wellington, 1990). To this end, researchers investigating learning arising from museum-based settings should appreciate these characteristics of human learning, and incorporate them in the conceptualisation and implementation of their research studies. 7.7 Areas for Future Research Given the epistemological views of learning this study has adopted, which regard the processes as gradual, incremental, and assimilative in nature, it follows that students' learningdevel ops beyond the experiences encountered in the time frame of this study. Section 3.10 described the limitation of this study in terms of the one-month time period available to the researcher to collect data. Clearly, it would be of interest to examine students' knowledge and understandings over an extended period of time beyond such time constraints. Two areas of focus loom as being pertinent to this study as well as being of general interest to educational researchers. First, an examination of students' knowledge and understanding six months to one-year following their Sciencentre and PV A experiences would be likely to provide additional understandings of how other subsequent experiences have affected their knowledge and understandings as a product. Secondly, such extended-term examination would also likely provide additional insight about the processes of knowledge construction, in terms of how students have interpreted subsequent experiences in the light of their understandings developed through their Sciencentre and PV A experiences. Such an examination would provide a clearer 356 picture of the progressive differentiation of knowledge and potentially provide further testimony to the saliency of science museum and PV A experiences in future development of knowledge and understandings. Outside of the confines of this study, researchers who accept a constructivist view of learning should consider the development of understandings over an extended time frame since isolated events and episodes, be they classroom experiences or a fieldtrip, do not contribute to knowledge and understanding in isolated ways. Knowledgedevelops as experiences are interpreted through each individual's existing understandings. Thus, to consider learning emergent from isolated events is to examine only a part of the learningproduct and processes which produced such knowledge. Studies such as Falk and Dierking (1997), Stevenson (1991), McManus (1993), Persall et al. (1997), and Shymansky et al. (1993), reported in Chapter Two, are testimony to the fruitfulness of examining learning processes over an extended period of time. Future studies which examine learning emergent from museum settings should also consider the extended-term perspective. This study has only considered the impact and effect of one kind of PV A experience following a visit to a science centre, specifically, that of classroom-based, teacher-facilitated, hands-on, activity. This form of PV A experience was, obviously, but one form of post-visit experience which could serve to enhance and develop further students' knowledge and understanding of subject matter portrayed in museum galleries. There are, potentially, a myriad of subsequent formal and informal-based experiences which could serve to cause students to construct further understandings. These may be as diverse as making connections and developing new understanding from watching a TV program, conversations with other people or reading books. Questions about the effectiveness of other forms of post-visit experiences, of both a formal and informal nature, remain unanswered by this study. To this end, further investigation regarding differing forms of such post-visit 357 experiences on learning are desirable. The investigation of different forms of PVA experiences may employ the use of quasi-experimental research design which use control group and experimental groups each incorporating different forms of PV As. 7.8 Summary In conclusion of this thesis, several issues loom large pertaining to the development of understandings of science emergent from science museum experiences and the role that PV As play in the development of those understandings. First, science centre experiences have the potential to help students develop many rich and diverse concepts and understandings pertaining to the science concepts portrayed within their exhibits and programs. The nature and character of such knowledge and understandings is only likely to be identifiedand interpreted through the use of qualitative, interpretive research methods. Second, PVA experiences relating to students' science centre experiences have been demonstrated to be powerful and fruitful in the construction of students' knowledge and understanding of topics incorporated in the exhibits. Third, while students' developing knowledge and understandings emergent from science centre experiences were frequently characterised by gradual and incremental changes, these changes proved to be powerful influences in the construction of subsequent understanding developed through the PVA experiences. Fourth, students' prior understandings and past experiences, both in and outside of the classroom, were shown to be powerful influences on the way subsequent knowledge and understandings were constructed. 358 Fifth, the processes of knowledge construction are detailed and complex. Knowledge and understanding was seen to transform in multiple ways through many processes which were regarded as being non-discrete and frequently occurring concurrently with one another. Sixth, the processes of knowledge construction were not only multiple, non discrete, and concurrent, but also seen to occur successively across the phases of the study. Thus, there were identifiedknowledge construction processes within knowledge construction processes in the development of understandings throughout the study. Seventh, the students' knowledge and understandings were highly unique in conceptual character, interconnections between concepts which students held, and in the knowledge construction processes they used to develop their understandings. While there exist some studies which demonstrate that learning does occur within, and result from, science museum experiences, this study has demonstrated convincingly that learning arising from such experiences is merely the harbinger of subsequent rich and diverse knowledge and understandings. Thus, museum-based experiences should not be considered by teachers or museum staff as isolated learning events, but rather, should be capitalised and exploited in the wider context of learning which is dynamic and continually shaping and informing subsequent experiences and learning outcomes. 359 References Anderson, D. (1994). The effe ct of pre-orientating year eight students to the informallea rning environment of a science museum on cognitive learning. Unpublished Master of Education thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Anderson, D. (1996). Whatabout AIDS? New York Hall of Science Unpublished evaluation report, SLi., Annapolis, Maryland, USA. Anderson, D. (1998, August). An analysis of the importance of informalandf ormal science learning contexts to each other: An overview perspective. Proceedings of the Learning Science in Informal Contexts Conference, Questacon, Canberra, ACT, Australia. Anderson, D., Garay, W., Roman, c., & Fong, J. (1997). Light power: A critical appraisal. Orlando Science Center. Unpublished evaluation report, SLi., Annapolis, Maryland, USA. Anderson, D., Hilke, D.D., Kramer, R., Abrams, c.B., & Dierking, L.D. (1997). Summative evaluation research: How things fly. National Air and Space Museum. Unpublished evaluation report, SLi., Annapolis, Maryland, USA. Anderson, D., & Holland, D. (1997). Front-end evaluation research: BioSci travelling exhibition. Carnegie Science Center. Unpublished evaluation report, SLi., Annapolis, Maryland, USA. Anderson, D., & Lucas, K.B. (1997). The effectiveness of orienting students to the physical features of a science museum prior to visitation. Research in Science Education, 27(4), 485-495. 361 Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Ausubel, D.P., Novak, J.D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Balling, J., Hilke, D., Liversidge, J., Cornell, E., & Perry, N. (1984). Role of the fa mily in the promotion of science literacy (Report No. SED-8112927). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Beyerbach, B., & Smith, J. (1990). Using a computerized concept mapping program to assess pre-service teachers' thinking about effective teaching. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 27, 961-972. Beiers, R.J., & McRobbie, c.J. (1992). Learning in interactive science centres. Research in Science Education, 22, 28-44 Berlyne, D.E. (1950). Novelty and curiosity as determinants of exploratory behaviour. British Journalof Psychology, 41, 79. Berlyne, D.E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Bernard, R.H. (1988). Research methods in culturalanthro pology. London: Sage Publications. Berry, J.W. (1983). Textured contexts: Systems and situations in cross-cultural psychology. In S.H. Irvine & J.W. Berry (Eds.), Human assessment and cultural fa ctors (pp. 117-125). Amsterdam: North Holland Press. 362 Benton, D. (1979). Intergenerational interactions in museums. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40-04A, (University Microfilms No. 7923569). Biggs, J.B. (Ed). (1991). Teachingfor learning: The view from cognitive psychology. Melbourne: Australian Council of Educational Research (ACER). Bitgood, S. (1989). School field trips: An overview. Visitor Behavior, 4(2), 3-6. Bitgood, S. (1991). What do we know about school field trips? Association of Science and Technology Centers (ASTC) Newsletter, 19(1), 6-8. Bloom, B.S. (Ed). (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longmans. Blud, L.M. (1990). Social interaction and learning among family groups visiting a museum. Museum Management and Curatorship, 9, 43-51. Bogdar, R.c., & Bikler, S.K. (1982). Qualitative research: An introduction to theoryand methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Boran, R., & Marek, E.A. (1991). The effect offree exploration from hands-on science center exhibits. In Proceedings of the 1990 National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Annual Meeting. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No 337 354) Bourn, M., Chambers, M., & Cleghorn, A. (1996). Families are learningin science museums. Curator, 39(2), 123-138. Bousquet, W.S. (1982). An application of Ausubel's learning theoryto environmental education: A study of concept mapping in a college natural resources 363 management course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Brady, L. (1992). Curriculum development. Sydney: Prentice Hall of Australia. Bredo, E. (1997). The social construction of learning. In Gary D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of academic learning: Construction of knowledge (pp. 3-45). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Bruner, 1. (1960). The process of education. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Burns, RB. (1994). Introduction to research methods. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire Pty Ltd. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in children. Cambridge, MA: MITPr ess. Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist, 41, 1123-1130 Carey, S. (1987). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Case, R (1991). Neo-Piagetian theories of child development. In RI. Sternberg & c.A. Berg (Eds.), Intellectual development (pp. 161-196). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Ceci, S.l., & Roazzi, A. (1994). The effects of context on cognition: Postcards from Brazil. In R Sternberg & R Wagner (Eds.), Mind in context (pp. 74-101). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Charlesworth, W. (1979). An ethological approach to studying intelligence. Human Development, 22, 212-216. 364 Chinnappan, M., Lawson, M., & Nason, R. (1999, July). The use of concept mapping procedures to characterise teachers ' mathematical content knowledge. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (MERGA 22), Adelaide, South Australia. Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B.F. Skinner's verbal behavior. Language, 35(1), 101-124. Churchman, D. (1985a). How and what recreational visitors learn at zoos. Anchorage, AK: American Association of Zoological Park and Aquarium Administrators. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 259 911) Churchman, D. (1985b). The educational impact of zoos and museums: A review of the literature. Los Angeles, CA: American Psychological Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 259 912) Churchman, D. (1987). Visitor behavior at the MelbourneZo o. Portland, OR: American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 283 717). Cleare, c.c. (1983). Using concept mapping to detect intervention effective in improving pre-service elementary education majors' understanding of science topic. In H. Helm & J. Novak (Eds.), Proceeding of the International Seminar on Misconception in Science and Mathematics (Vol. 1, pp. 272-281). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Cohen, R., Eylon, B., & Ganiel, U. (1993). Potential differences and current in simple circuits: A study of students' concepts. American Journalof Physics, 51, 407-412. Cole, M., & Scribner, S. (1974). Culture and thought: A psychological introduction. New York, NY: Wiley. 365 Cone, c.A., & Kendall, K. (1978). Space, time, and familyinteracti on: Visitor behavior at the science museum of Minnesota. Curator, 21(3), 245-258. Confrey, 1. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science, and programming. Review of Research in Education, 16, 3-56. Dewey, 1. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Diamond, 1. (1980). The ethology of teaching: A perspective from the observations offamilies in science centers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42-01A (University Microfilms No. 8113012). Diamond, 1. (1986). The behaviour of family groups in science museums. Curator, 29(2), 139-154. Dierking, L.D. (1987). Parent-child interactions in a free choice learning setting: An examination of attention-directing behaviors. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49-14A (University Microfilms No. 8809628). Dierking, L.D. (1989). The family museum experience: hnplication from research. Journalof Museum Education, 14(2), 9-12. Dierking, L.D. (1994). Role de l'interaction sociale dans l'experience museale. Invited paper for special issue on social interaction in museums and interpretive centers. Publics et Musees, 5, 19-41. Dierking, L.D. (1996a). Social interaction and the museum experience. Unpublished manuscript, SLi., Annapolis, Maryland, USA. 366 Dierking, L.D. (1996b). Family learning: From research to museum practice. In M. Borun (Ed.) Philadelphia/Cander Info rmalScience Education papers (pp23-44), Philadelphia, P A: Franklin Institute Science Museum. Dierking, L., Anderson, D., Abrams, c., Kramer, R, & Gronborg, J. (1998). The world we create: Summative Evaluation Report. Louisville Science Center, Inc. Unpublished evaluation report, Institute for Learning Innovation., Annapolis, Maryland, USA. Dierking, L.D., & Falk, J.H. (1994). Family behavior and learningin informal science settings: A review of the research. Science Education, 78( 1), 57-72. diSessa, A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P.B. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Donaldson, M. (1978). Children 's minds. London: FontanalCollins. Driver, RA. (1983). The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes, Open University Press. Driver, RA., & Bell, B. (1986). Students' thinking and learning of science: A constructivist view. School Science Review, 67, 443-456. Driver, R, Leach, J., Scott P, & Wood-Robinson, C. (1994). Young people's understanding of science concepts: Implications of cross-age studies for curriculum planning. Studies in Science Education, 24, 75-100 . Duit, R (1994). Research on students' conceptions-developments and trend. In H. Pfundt & R Duit (Eds.), Bibliography: Students ' alternativefra meworks and science education (3rd ed., pp. xxii-xlii). Kie1, Germany: University of Kiel. Duterroil, A. (1975). Museum education: Recent trends in learning environments. San Antonio: Texas University. 367 Dymond, F., Goodrum, D., & Kerr, I. (1990). Evaluation of SCITECH exhibits (Report commissioned by SCITECH Discovery Centre). Perth, W A: MASTEC, Western Australian College of Advanced Education. Endsley, R.C. (1967). Effects of differential prior exposure on school children's subsequent choice of novel stimuli. Psychonomic Science, 7, 411-412. Erickson, G.L. (1979). Children's conceptions of heat and temperature. Science Education, 63(2), 221 -230. Erickson, G.L. (1980). Children's viewpoints of heat: A second look. Science Education, 64(3), 323-336. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). London: Simon & Schuster and Prentice Hall International. Evans, G.W. (1995). Learning and the physical environment. In I.H. Falk & L.D. Dierking (Eds.), Public institutions fo r personal learning: Establishing a research agenda (pp. 119-126). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums. Eylon, B., & Linn, M.C. (1988). Learning and instruction: An examination of four research perspectives in science education. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 251-30l. Falk, I.H. (1983). Field trips: A look at environmental effects on learning. Journal of Biological Education, 17(2), 137-141. Falk, I.H., & Balling I.D. (1980). The school fieldtrip : Where you go makes the difference. Science and Children, 17(6), 6-8. 368 Falk, J.H., & Balling, J.D. (1982). The field trip milieu: Learning and behavior as a function of contextual events. Journalof Educational Research, 76( 1), 22-28. Falk, J.H., & Dierking, L.D. (1992). The museum experience. Washington, DC: Whaleback Books Falk, J.H., & Dierking, L.D. (1995). Public institutions fo r personal learning: Establishing a research agenda. Washington, DC: Amercian Association of Museums. Falk, J.H., & Dierking, L.D. (1997). School field trips: Assessing their long-term impact. Curator, 40(3), 211-218 Falk, J.H., Koran, J.J., Dierking, L.D., & Dreblow, L. (1985). Predicting visitor behavior. Curator, 28(4), 249-256. Falk, J.H., Koran, J.J., & Dierking, L.D. (1986). The things of science: Assessing the learning potential of science museums. Science Education, 70(5), 503-508. Falk, J.H., Martin, W.W., & Balling, J.D. (1978). The novel field-tripphenome non: Adjustment to novel settings interferes with task learning. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 15(2), 127-1 34. Feher, E. (1990). Interactive museum exhibits as tools for learning: Exploration with light. International Journalof Science Education, 12(1), 35-39. Feher, E., & Rice, K. (1985). Development of scientificcon cepts through the use of interactive exhibits in a museum. Curator, 28(1), 35-46 Feher, E., & Rice, K. (1988). Shadows and anti-images: Children's conceptions of light and vision n. Science Education, 7(5), 637-649 369 Field, B. (1975). Hands on museums: Partners in learning. New York: Education Facilities Labs. Finson, K.D., & Enochs, L.G. (1987). Student attitudes toward science-technology society resulting from visitation to a science-technology museum. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 24(7), 593-609. Flexer, B.K., & Borun, M. (1984). The impact of a class visit to a participatory science museum exhibit and a classroom science lesson. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 21(9), 863-873. Folkomer, T.H. (1981). Comparison of three methods of teaching geology in junior science school. Journalof Geological Education, 29, 74-75. Fraser, K., & Edwards, J. (1985). The effect of training in concept mapping on student achievement in traditional tests. Research in Science Education, 15, 158- 165 Gallagher, J.M., & Snow-Dockser, L. (1987). Parent-child interactions in a museum for pre-school children. Children 's Environments Quarterly, 4(1), 41-45. Gentner, D., & Gentner, D.R. (1983). Flowing waters in teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity. In D. Gentner & A.L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 99- 129). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum. Gergen, K.J. (1995). Social construction and the educational process. In L.P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 17-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. 370 Gilbert, J.K., & Watts, D.M. (1983). Conceptions, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, iO, 61-98. Ginsburg, H., & Opper, S. (1979). Piaget's theoryof intellectual development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Glaser, R., & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning theory and the study of instruction. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 631 -666. Glasersfeld, E. von (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In P. Watlawick (Ed.), The invented reality (pp. 17-40). New York: W.W. Norton. Glasersfeld, E. von (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Washington, DC: Falmer Press. Gorden, R.L. (1975). interviewing: Strategies, techniques, and tactics. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Gottfried, J.L. (1979). A naturalistic study of children 's behavior in a free-choice learning environment. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of California, Berkley, CA. Gottfried, J.L. (1980). Do children learn on field trips? Curator, 23(3), 165-174. Griffin,J.N. (1998). School-museum integrated learning experiences in science: A learning journey. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Technology, Sydney. Griffin, J., & Symington, D. (1997). Moving from task-oriented to learning-oriented strategies on school excursions to museums. Science Education, 8i (6), 763-779. 371 Guba, F.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc. Gunstone, RF., & White, RT. (1981). Understanding gravity. Science Education, 65(3),291-299. Gunstone, R, & White, R (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer Press. Hewson, P.W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning science. European Journalof Science Education, 3, 383-396. Hewson, P.W. (1982). A case study of conceptual change in special relativity: The influenceof prior knowledge in learning. European Journalof Science Education, 4, 61-78. Hewson, M., & Hewson, P.W. (1983). Effect of instruction using students' prior knowledge and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 20(8), 731-743. Hilke, D.D., & Balling, J.D. (1985). The family as a learning system: An observational study of families in museums. In J. Ballings, D. Hilke, J. Liversidge, E. Cornell, & N. Perry (Eds.), Roles of the fa mily in the promotion of science literacy (pp. 134-1 57) (Final Report for NSF Grant, SED -8112927). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Hoz, R, Tomer, Y., & Tamir, P. (1990). The relations between disciplinary and pedagogical knowledge and the length of teaching experience of biology and geography teachers. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 27, 973-988. 372 Hynd, CR., Alvermann, D.E., & Qian, G. (1993). Prospective teachers ' comprehension and teaching of a complex science concept (Reading Research Report 4). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence: An essay on the construction offo rmal operational structures. London: Routledge. Irvine, S.H., & Berry, J.W. (1988). The abilities of mankind: A reevaluation. In S.H. Irvine & J.W. Berry (Eds.), Human abilities in culturalcontext (pp. 3-59). New York: Cambridge University Press. James, W. (1890/1950). The principles of psychology. New York: Dover Publications. Javlekar, V.D. (1989). Learning scientific concepts in science centers. In S. Bitgood (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1989 Vistor Studies Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 168-179). J acksonville, AL: Center for Social Design. Keil, F.C (1979). Semantic and conceptual development: An ontological perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kimche, L. (1978). Science centers: A potential for learning,Scien ce, 199, 270-273. Koran, J.J., Lehman J.R., Shafer, L.D., & Koran M.L. (1983). The relative effects of pre and post attention directing devices on learningfrom a "walk-through" museum exhibit. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 20(4), 341 -346. Koran, J.J., & Longino, S.J. (1982). Curiosity and children's science learning. Science and Children, 20, 18-19. 373 Koran, J.J. Jr., & Dierking-Shafer, L.D., (1981). Learning science in informal settings. In M.B. Rowe (Ed.), Science in the 80s. (pp. 29-38). Washington, DC: National Education Association. Korn, R, & Sowd, L. (1990). Visitor surveys: A user's manual. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums Technical Information Service. Kubota, c.A., & Olstad, RG. (1991). Effects of novelty-reducing preparation on exploratory behavior and cognitive learningin a science museum setting. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 28(3), 225-234 Lakota, RA. (1976). The national museum of naturalhi storyas a behavioral environment (2 parts), Washington, DC: Officeof Museum Programs, Smithsonian Institution. Lam-Kan, K.S. (1985). The contributions of enrichmet activities towards science interest and science achievment. Unpublished MEd Thesis, National University of Singapore. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Laetsch, W.M., Diamond, J., Gottfried, J.L., & Rosenfeld, S. (1980). Children and family groups in science centers. Science and Children, 17(6), 14-17. Lancy, D.F. (1993). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to the major traditions. New York, NY: Longman Publishing Group. Laudan, L. (1984). Science and values. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 374 Lawson, A. (1991). Is Piaget's epistemic subject dead? Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 28, 581-592. Lewis, E.L. (1991). The process of scientific knowledge acquisition of middle school students learning thermodynamics. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkley, CA. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbery Park, CA: Sage Liu, x. (1993, June). The validity andreliability of concept mapping as an alternative science assessment. Paper presented at the Third International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Liu, X. (1994, March). The validityand reliabilityof concept mapping as an alternative science assessment when item response theory is usedfor scoring. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, USA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 370 992). Lubow, R.E., Ritkin,B., & Alek, M. (1976). The context effect: The relationship between stimulus, pre-exposure and environmental pre-exposure determines subsequent learning. Journalof Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2(1), 38-47. Lucas, K.B., & Roth, W-M. (1996). The nature of scientificknowledge and student learning: Two longitudinal case studies. Research in Science Education, 26(1), 103-127 Lucas, A.M., McMannus, P., & Thomas, G. (1986). Investigating learning from informal sources: Listening to conversations and observing play in science museums. European Journalof Science Education, 8(4), 341-352. 375 Lucas, K.B. (1998). On teacher's agenda for a class visit to an interactive science center. Submitted to Science Education. Martin, W.W., Falk, J.H., & Balling, J.D. (1981). Environmental effects on learning: The outdoor fieldtrip. Science Education, 65(3), 301-309. Matthews, M.R. (1997). Introductory comments on philosophy and constructivism in science education. Science & Education, 6( 1-2), 5-14. McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McDermott, L.e. (1988). A view from physics. In M. Mardner, J. Greeno, F. Reif, & A. Schoenfeld. (Eds.), Towards a scientificpractice of science education, (pp. 3- 30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc. McDermott, L.e. (1994). Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics. Physics Today, 37, 24-32. McManus, P.M. (1987). It's the company you keep: The social determination of learning-related behaviour in a science museum. The InternationalJo urnalof Museum Management and Curatorship, 6(3), 263-270. McManus, P.M. (1988). Good companions: More on the social determination of learning-related behaviour in a science museum. The International Journalof Museum Management and Curatorship, 7( 1), 37-44. McManus, P.M. (1989). Oh yes they do! How visitors read labels and interact with exhibit texts. Curator, 32(2), 174-198. 376 McManus, P.M. (1992). Topics in museums and science education. Studies in Science Education, 20, 157-182. McManus, P.M. (1993). Memories as indicators of the impact of museum visits. Museum Management and Curatorship, 12, 367-380. McRobbie, c.J., & Tobin, K. (1995). Restraints to reform: The congruence of teacher and student actions in a chemistry classroom. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 373-385. The Macquarie Dictionary (1997). A. Delbridge, J. Bernard, D.Blair, S. Butler, D. Peters, & C. Yallop (Eds.) (3rd Edition), The Macquarie Library Pty Ltd. Mead, G.H. (191011970). Social consciousness and the consciousness of meaning. In H.S. Thayer (Ed.), Pragmatism: The classic writings (pp. 341-350). New York: Mentor Books. Measor, L. (1985). Interviewing: A strategy in qualitative research. In R.G. Burgess (Ed.), Strategies of educational research: Qualitative methods (pp. 55-77). London: The Falmer Press. Mendal, G. (1965). Children's preferences for differing degrees of novelty. Child Development, 36, 453-465. Miller, H.G. (1983). Adult education in museums and public libraries. School of Technical Careers, Southern lllinoisUniversity at Carbondale, U.S.A. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 231 986) Minstrell, J. (1992). Facets of students' knowledge and relevant instruction. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), The Proceedings of the International Wo rkshop on Research in Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies (pp. 1-25). Bremen, Germany: Kiel. 377 Mintzes, J.J., & Wandersee, J.H. (1998). Reform and innovation in science teaching: A human constructivist view. In J.J. Mintzes, J.H. Wandersee, & J.D. Novak (Eds.), Teaching science fo r understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 30-58). San Diego: Academic Press. Mintzes, J.J., Wandersee, J.H., & Novak, J.D. (1997). Meaningful learningin science. The human constructivist perspective. In G.D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of academic learning: Construction of knowledge (pp 405-447). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Moore, R.W., & Sutman, F.x. (1970). The development field testand validation of an inventory of scientific attitudes. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 7, 85- 94. Novak, J. D. (1977). A theoryof education. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Novak, J.D., & Gowin, D.B. (1984). Learninghow to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Novak, J.D., Gowin, D.B., & Johansen, G.T. (1983). The use of concept mapping and knowledge Vee mapping with junior high school science students. Science Education, 67(5), 625-645. O'Loughlin, M. (1992). Rethinking science education: Beyond Piagetian constructivism toward a sociocultural model of teaching and learning. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 29(8), 791-820. Orion, N., & Hofstein, A. (1994). Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 29(8), 1097-11 19. 378 Parlett, M., & Hamilton, D. (1976). Evaluation as illumination: A new approach to the study of innovative programmes. Evaluation Studies Review Annual, 1, 140-157. Pearsall, N.R., Skipper, J.J., & Mintzes, J.J. (1997). Knowledge restructuring in the life sciences: A longitudinal study of conceptual change in biology. Science Education, 81, 193-215. Peart, B. (1984). Impact of exhibit type on knowledge gain, attitudes, and behaviour. Curator, 27(3), 220-237. Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools: From training memories to educating minds. New York: Free Press. Phye, G.D. (1992). Stategic transfer: A tool for academic problem solving. Educational Psychology Review, 4, 393-420. Piaget, J. (1970). The child's conception of movement and speed. New York: Basic Books. Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pope, M., & Gilbert, J. (1983). Personal experience and the construction of knowledge in science. Science Education, 67(2), 193-203. Posner, G.J. (1981, April). Promising directions in curriculum knowledge: a cognitive psychology perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA. Posner, G.J., & Gertzog, W.A. (1982). The clinical interview and the measurement of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 195-209 379 Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W., & Gertzog, W.A. (1982). Accomodation of a scientificconce ption: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227. Postman, N., & Weingartner, L. (1971). Teaching as a subversive activity. Hammondsworth: Penguin. Pryce, K. (1979). Endless pressure. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Rafferty, C.D. (1993). Concept mapping: A viable alternative to objective and essay exams. Reading, Research and Instruction, 32(3), 25-34. Rennie, L.J., & McClafferty, T.P. (1996). Science centres and science learning. Studies in Science Education, 27, 53-98. Resnick, L.B. (1983). Mathematics and science learning: A new conception. Science, 220, 477-478. Rice, P. (1991). Concepts of health and illness in Thai children. International Journalof Science Education, 13(1), 555-127. Rice, K., & Feher, E. (1987). Pinholes and images: Children's conceptions of light and vision. I. Science Education, 71 (4), 629-639. Richardson, S.A., Dorenwend, B.S., & Klein, D. (1965). Interviewing: Itsformsand fu nctions. New York, NY: Basic Books. Rochelle, J. (1995). Learning in interactive environments: Prior knowledge and new experience. In J.H. Falk & L.D. Dierking (Eds.), Public institutions fo r personal learning: Establishing a research agenda (pp. 37-51). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums. 380 Rollnick, M.S., & Rutherford, M. (1990). African primary school teachers - what ideas do they hold on air and air pressure? International Journalof Science Education, 12(1), 101-113. Rosenfeld, S. (1980). Informal education in zoos: Naturalisticstudies infamily groups. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Royer, J., Cisero, c.A., & Carlo, M.S. (1993). Techniques and procedures for assessing cognitive skills. Review of Educational Research, 63, 201-224. Rumelhart, D., & Norman, D. (1978). Accretion, tuning and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In J. Cotton & R Klateky (Eds.), Semantic fa ctors in cognition (pp. 37-53). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Schreiber, D.A., & Abegg, G.L. (1991, March). Scoring student-generated concept maps in introductory college chemistry. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, WI. Seidman, I.E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide fo r researchers in education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Shettel, H.H. (1973). Exhibits: Art form or educational medium? Museum News, 52( 1), 32-34. Shiffrin, RM., & Dumais, S.T. (1981). The development of automatism. In J.R Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp 123-140). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 381 Rollnick, M. S., & Rutherford, M. (1990). African primary school teachers - what ideas do they hold on air and air pressure? International Journal of Science Education, 12(1), 101-113. Rosenfe ld, S. (1980). Informal education in zoos: Naturalistic studies in family groups. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Royer, 1., Cisero, c.A., & Carlo, M. S. (1993). Techniques and procedures fo r assessing cognitive skills. Review of Educational Research, 63, 201-224. Rumelhart, D., & Norman, D. (1978). Accretion, tuning and restructuring: Three modes oflearning. In 1. Cotton & R. Klateky (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition (pp. 37-53). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affi liation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Schreiber, D.A., & Abegg, G.L. (1991, March). Scoring student-generated concept maps in introductory college chemistry. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association fo r Research in Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, WL Seidman, LE. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Shettel, H.H. (1973). Exhibits: Art fo rm or educational medium? Museum News, 52(1), 32-34. Shiffrin, R.M., & Dumais, S.T. (1981). The development of automatism. In J.R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp 123-140). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 381 Shymansky, J.A, Woodworth, G., Norman, 0., Dunkhase, J., Matthews, C., & Liu, C. (1993). A study of changes in middle school teachers' understanding of selected ideas in science as a function of an in-service program focusing on student preconceptions. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 30(7), 373-755. Shymansky, J.A, Yore, L.D., Treagust, D.F., Thiele, RB., Harrison, A, Waldrip, B.G, Stocklmayer, S.M., & Venville, G. (1997). Examining the construction process: A study of changes in level 10 students' understanding of classical mechanics. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 34(7), 571-593. Skinner, B.F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Random House. Spradley, J.P. (1979). The ethnographics interview. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Stake, RE. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Staver, J.R (1998, April). Constructivism: Sound theoryfo r explicating the practice of science and science teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Diego, CA Stevenson, J. (1991). The long-term impact of interactive exhibits. International Journalof Science Education, 13(5), 521-531. Stew art, J. (1990). Techniques for assessing and representing information in cognitive structure. Science Education, 64(2), 223-235. Stewart, J., Van Kirk, J., & Rowell, R (1979). Concept maps: A tool for use in biology teaching. American Biology Teacher, 41(3), 171-175. 382 Stoneberg, S.A. (1981). The effects of pre-visit, on-visit, and post-visit zoo activities upon the cognitive achievement and attitudes of sixth grade pupils. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Minnesota, Minnesota, USA. Stronck, D.R (1983). The comparative effects of different museum tours on children's attitudes and learning. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 20(4), 283-290. Suchting, W.A. (1992). Constructivism desconstructed. Science & Education, 1(3), 223-254. Sutton, RC. (1980). The learner's prior knowledge: A critical review of techniques for probing its' organisation. European Journalof Science Education, 2(2), 107- 120. Taylor, N. (1997). Fiji pre-service teachers ' understanding of physical science: A cultural perspective. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Taylor, S. (1986). Understanding processes of informaleducation: A naturalistic study of visitors to a public aquarium. Dissertation Abstracts International, 48-05A (University MicrofilmsNo. 8718179). Tennyson, RD. (1989). Cognitive science and instructional technology: Improvements in higher order thinking strategies. In Proceedings of Selected Research Papers presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Dallas, TX, February 1-5, 1989. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 308 846). Tennyson, RD. (1992). An educational learning theory for instructional design. Educational Technology, 1(32), 36-41. 383 Tennyson, RD., & Rasch, M. (1989). Linking cognitive learning theory to instructional prescriptions. Instructional Science, 17, 369-385. Thier, H.D., & Linn, M.C. (1975). The value of interactive learning experiences in a museum: Advancing education through science-orientated programs. Berkeley CA: Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 182 156) Tobin, K., & McRobbie, c.J. (1996). Cultural myths as restrainst to the enacted science curriculum. Science Education, 80(2), 223-241. Trigwell, K., & Sleet, R (1990). Improving the relationships between assessment results and student understanding. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 15(3), 190-197. Tuckey, c.J. (1992). Schoolchildren's reactions to an interactive science center. Curator, 35(1), 28-38. Valsiner, J., & Leung, M-C. (1994). From intelligence to knowledge construction: A sociogenetic process approach. In R Sternberg & R Wagner (Eds.), Mind in context (pp. 203-217). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vargas, E.M., & Alvarez, H.J. (1992). Mapping out students' abilities. Science Scope, 15(6), 41-43. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wallace, J.D., & Mintzes, J.J. (1990). The concept map as a research tool: Exploring conceptual change in biology. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 1033-1052 384 Wandersee, J.H., Mintzes, J.J, & Novak, J.D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning: A project of the national science teachers association (pp. 131-177). New York: Macmillian Publishing Company. Watson, J.B. (1924/1930). Behaviorism. New York: W.W. Norton and Co. Wellington J.J. (1990). Formal and informal learning in science: The role of the interactive science centres. Physics Education, 25, 247-252. West, L.H.T., & Pines, A.L. (1983). How "rational" is rationality? Science Education, 67, 37-39. Wiser, M., & Carey, S. (1993). When heat and temperature were one. In D. Gentner & A.L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 267-97). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum. Wolins, I.S., Jensen, N., & Ulzheimer, R. (1992). Children's memories of museum field trips: A qualitative study. Journalof Museum Education, 17(2), 17-27. Woolfolk, A. (1987). Educational psychology (3rd Edition) New York: Prentice Hall. Wright, E. (1980). Analysis of the effect of a museum experience on the biology achievement of sixth graders. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 17(2), 99- 104. 385 Appendicies Appendix A Student Ha nd- Out: Practice Exercise - Ma king a Mind Map Mind Map 1. Think about how each of the seven terms might be related to one another. 2. If you can think of some other terms which might be related to these terms then write them in the blank ovals 3. Cut these out and arrange them in It map which shows how these are related or connected to each other in some way. 4. Draw connecting arrows between each of the terms and write a sentence using both terms to describe how the terms are related. 5. If you can't thinkhow a term might be related to any of the other terms in your map , you don't have to use that term. ------...... / ------...... "- / / "- / ------...... / "- ( The Sun ') Cow / " J ( ') "- / " J ---- .....- / -- - "'------.....- ( � /------...... -- - J "- - \ / "'-- ...... _----..-/ ------/ /' ---- "- ( � / J / ( Carbon \) .....- " Dioxide J "- / '-...... ------...... / - "- - / -- - -..... ------...... /' / "- "'- / ( � / " J Tick "'- / ( j ---- .....- ---- ( Humans ') J J / \ .....- '-..... ------/ 387 Appendix B Student Hand-Out: Ma king a Mi nd Map About Magnetism Mind Map 1. Think about the topic of "Magnetism' which you have just been studying. 2. Write the terms that come to mind when you think about this topic in the list below . 3. Now write these terms in the ovals and cut these out and arrange them in a map which shows how these are related or connected to each other. 4. Draw connecting arrows between c.ach of the terms and write a sentence using both terms to describe how the terms are related. Terms 1. Magnetism 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 388 Appendix C Student Ha nd-Out: Making a Mi nd Map About Magnetism & Electricity: Ma in Study 1. Think about tbe topics of "Magnetism" and "Electricity."Mind Map 2. Write the terms that come to mind when you think about these topics in the list below . 3. Now write these terms in the ovals and cut these out and arrange them in a map which shows how these are related or connected to each other. 4. Draw connecting arrows between each of the terms and write a sentence using both terms to describe how the terms are related. S. You may use morc "terms" and "O¥als" than are listed on this hand-out by requesting another copy of this hand-out Terms 1. Magnetism 2. Electricity 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 11'" 389 Appendix D Samples of Post-visit Activities Develop ed at RFSCfor the Signals Exhibition Analog and Digital Objective: 1. To ide ntify and justify differences between analog and digital methods of storing and retrieving signals. 2. To identify and justify differences between analog and digital methods of sending and receiving signals . Related Exhibits: • Binary Numbers. o Noisy Signals . o Fragments of Jericho. * Fax It. • Digitize it. o Record Grooves . o infrared Light Transmitter. Materials: Pen, Paper, Worksheet, and a Partner. To Do : Below are two headings: Ways of Storing and Retrieving Signals and Ways of Sending and Receiving Signals, each of which contain a number of items. 1. Working with a partner, draw a large table similar to the one below. 2. From the list of items contained within each category, classify each item as being either "Digital" or "Analog" and justify why you believe that item fits into that classification. Ways of Storing and Retrieving Signals: Vinyl Records, Compact Discs, Audio Cassettes, Video Tape , Floppy Discs, Video Disc, Books, Microfiche, Hologram, Human Genes, and Card Catalog. Way of Sending and Receiving Signals: FM Radio, Fiber Optics , Co-axial Cable, 16 Bit Ribbon Cable, Copper Wire, Semaphore, Smoke Signals, AM Radio, Microwaves, Gestures, E-mail, and Sound Waves. 3. In your own words, write a couple of sentence which describe the difference between: (i) An analog and a digital way of storing and retrieving signals . (ii) An analog and a digital way of sending and receiving signals . 4. Compare you answers with the rest of the class in a teacher-directed class discussion. 390 Living Signals Objective: 1. To explore the signals that animals send to other animals , including how and why those signals are generated . Related Exhibits: • Lightning Bugs (Fireflies) • Speech Delay Materials: Pencil, paper, and a good imagination. To do: 1. In g roups of two or three, decide what kinds of signals a flower would send. Your list should have at ieast three specific signals. Why would a Hower send ihese signals? 'vV hu ur wiJat is the intended receiver of these sig nals? 2. While still In groups, consider the signals that animals generate. (i) Choose an animal from each of the following categories: insect or arachnid, amphibian, bird, small mammal, and large mammal. (ii) Predict four specific Signals that each animal would send. For example, a dog might wag its tail, scratch a door, roll over, raise the hair on its back, or snarl). Be sure to explain: a) how the signal is sent, b) why the signal is sent. c) the intended receiver, and d) whether or not the Signal is consciously sent. 3. Make a trip to your school libraryor local library. For each animal, determine whether or not your predictions and explanations occur in real life. Questions to consider: (A) How do these signals differ from the signals that people send to each other? How are they the same? (B) At the library, did you find any particular signals that you hadn't considered? Why do you think they didn't occur to you at first? 391 Amazing Phase Objective: 1. To demonstrate the effect of phase, in terms of two slinky pulses being either, in-phase or out-of-phase resulting in constructive and destructive interference. Related Exhibits: * The Slinky. .* Movers and Shakers. * Dial-a-wave. * Tacoma Narrows. Materials: A slinky Spring and three empty aluminum cans. To Do: Aim (Part A): Tn knock nut ca n #2 but not cans #1 and #3, with two simultaneously produced, in-phase pulses which meet in the middle ot the slinky. 1. Clear an area approximately 18ft long by 5ft wide. 2. Lay the slinky flat on the floor and extend the slinky spring out along the length of the cleared area. Assign a person to each end of the slinky (Pulse Makers) and extend it out until it just becomes tight (approximately 15 feet is ideal, but this depends on the type of slinky). 3. Place three aluminium cans in the positions indicated in diagram (A) below. 4. On the count of three, Pulse Makers #1 and #2 make a pulse by holding the end of the spring in one hand and giving it a small quick flick to one side and then holding yo ur hand steady. This pulse must be just small enough to miss tin cans #1 and #3. Pulse maker #1 must flick to their right, while pulse maker #2 must flick to their left to produce in-phase pulses. 5. Practice several time until you can fulfill the Part(A) aim. Diagram (A) - In-Phase SlinkyPu lses 1 3 0.,. 1'0 Pu lse � I � Pu lse Maker #l � * 1 Maker # 2 15 fe et � To Do: Aim (Part 8): To knock out tin cans #1 and #4 but not #2 and #3, with two simultaneously produced, out-at- phase pulses which meet in the middle of the slinky. 1. As in a similar arrangement to Part (A), place four aluminium cans in the positions indicated in diagram (8) below. 2. On the count of three, Pulse Makers #1 and #2 make a pulse by holding the end of the spring in one hand and giving it a small quick flick to one side and then holding your hand steady. This pulse must be large enough to knock out tin cans #1 and #4. 80th Pulse maker's must flick to their right. or both to their left to produce out-of-phase pulses. 3. Practice several time until you can fulfill the Part (8) aim. Diagram (B) - Out-af-Phase SlinkyPu lses 2 4 Pu lse Pulse 0'" 0 -1- � Maker # 1 ...... _____� ------��t ------l- .r- - � Maker #2 � 6 Inches 0 ot1 3 Going WhWhaen t'spulses pass throughOn: one each other, they interfere with one another. If the pulses interferewith each other when they are in-phase, then they will add together to make a large pulse. If the pulses interfere with each other when they are out-of-phase then they ·cancel" each other out. 392 Appendix E Post-visit Activities/or Stage 3, Ph ase 3 - Part One, Facilitator In structions Student Theories of Row the Electricity and Magnetism Exhibits Work Duration: 1 hour Grouv� Size : 2 students Aim: a) To initiate students' review their Science Museum field trip. b) To provide stimulus and activity which will cause students' knowledge in the domains of magnetism and electricity to be constructed and or reconstructed. 1. Show the class slides of the six exhibits fr om the Electricity and Magnetism gallery of the Science Center: Electric Motor, Generating Electricity, Electricity fr om a Magnet, Rand battery, Curie Point, and Making a Magnet. 2. Instruct students to select two exhibits which they fo und the most interesting - One from Set A and one fr om Set B Set A {Electric Mo tor, Generating Electricity, Electricityfr om a Magnet} Set B {Hand battery, Curie Point, Ma king a Magnet} 3. Instruct students to provide written answers to the fo llowing: a) Make a list of the different parts of each exhibit selected. b) What did you do at each exhibit? Who were you with at each exhibit? c) What did each exhibit do when you interacted with it? 4. Instruct students to work in pairs and write answers to the fo llowing: d) What to you think each exhibit was "trying" to demonstrate or communicate to you? e) What are the differences between the two exhibits? f) What are the similarities between the two exhibits? 5. Allow students to share their answers with the rest of the class in a teacher fa cilitated discussion. 6. Instruct students to write a "why the exhibits do what they do" (theory of operation) fo r each of the two exhibits. 7. Allow students to share their answers with the rest of the class in a teacher fa cilitated discussion. 393 Appendix F Post=visit Activitiesfo r Stage 3, Phase 3 c Part One, Student Hand-out Circle the exhibit you fo und most interesting from Circle the exhibit you fo und most interesting from this list (Set A): this list (Set B): Electric Mo tor, Generating Electricity, Ha nd battery, Curie Point, Ma king a Magnet. Electricityfrom a Ma gnet. Make a list of the different parts of the exhibit Make a list of the different parts of the exhibit selected. selected. What did you do at this exhibit? Who were you What did you do at this exhibit? Who were you with at this exhibit? with at this exhibit? What did each exhibit do when you interacted What did each exhibit do when you interacted with it? with it? 394 What to you think the exhibit was "trying" to What to you think the exhibit was "trying"to demonstrate or communicate to you? demonstrate or communicate to you? What are thedif ferences or similarities between the two exhibits? Write an explanation of "why the exhibits do what they do" for each of the two exhibits. Set A:Exh ibit: ______ SetB:Exhibit:------ N ame: ______ 395 poste visit Activitiesfo r Stage 3, Phase 3 - Part Two, Student Hand-out ___ Post-Visit Activity - Part Two NAME:.______ Application of Theoryto Hands on Activity Aim: 1. To generate electricity using a magnet. 2. To make a magnet fr om electricity. Equipment: • One piece of iron rod. • One wound copper wire core. • One bar magnet. • One Micro Ammeter. • One 12 V Power Supply Part (AJ - Ma king Electricityfr om a Magn et: To Do: -.) 2. Move the barmagnet back and fo rth across the length of the wire bound iron core holding the magnet away from the core at a distance of about 0.5 cm. Observations: Write a sentence to describe exactly what you observed. 4. Compare what happens when you move the magnet slowly with when you move it fa st. Observations: Write a sentence to describe exactly what you observed. Wh at's going on: Write two sentences to describe what you think is going on. 396 Part (B) Making a magnetfrom Electricity To Do: 1. Connect the wound copper wire core to the 12 Volt power supply as in the diagram below and insert an iron core in the middle. IN "'.1>-3.( c..o"t�-.r�\vea _ ) 2. Turn the power supply on and try and pick some metal paper clips up using one end of the iron core. 3. Turn the power off by disconnecting the circuit. Observations: Write a sentence to describe exactly what you observed. Wh at 's going on: Write two sentences to describe what you think is going on. What are the similarities between this experiment and exhibits discussed in "Part 1" (this mornings lesson)? Describe other exhibits your saw at the museum which are similar to this experiment. 397 Appendix G Target Exhibits - Descriptions and Concepts Portrayedin the Electricity and Magnetism Exhibits at the Sciencentre Curie Point: A magnet suspended by a string is attracted and attached to a small coil of wire which is connected to a DC power supply. When a button is pressed, current flows throughthe wire, causing it to heat up and eventually glow red hot. At thispoi nt, the magnet ceases to be attracted to the wire and swings away under the force of gravity. Electric Motor: An electric motor with current direction control (forward/reverse) may be housed between two magnets which can be placed about the motor. The polarity of these magnets can be changed (SIN or N/S). By selecting a current direction and placing the magnets on the motor, the rotor will spin. Changing the polarity or current direction willchange the spin direction of the motor. Hand Battery: Two pairs of metal plates, copper and aluminium, are connected to an ammeter. Placing one's hands on two dissimilar metals plates connects a circuit and produces a small electrical current, which registers on the ammeter. ie. one hand on copper and the other on aluminium. Further, pressing down hard, and/or moistening hand prior to placing them on the plates, increases the produced current. Linking several people in the circuit loop holding hands, increases the resistance of the circuit and consequently decreases the current. 398 Magnetism fr om Electricity: Solenoid in a fixed position is surrounded by many small magnetic compasses. DC current through the solenoid can be turnedon and off. When the solenoid is on, all the compass needles move and align themselves in a fixedpatt ern. Making a Magnet (Making Magnets): A metal screwdriver, two solenoids - one connected to AC the other to DC, and a container filled with metal nuts. Insert screwdriver into DC solenoid and turn power on - leave for 10 sec. Insert the screwdriver into the container and observe interaction - attracts nuts. Repeat same procedure for AC solenoid - does not attract nuts. Electric Generator An electric generator comprising a clear plastic casing housing an arrangment of magnets which may be turned through a coil of wire. Visitor turn a crankhandle to move the magnets, which produces electricity illuminating a small light bulb. 399 Other Exhibits Floating Magnets: A series of donut-shaped magnets are placed like-pole to like-pole in a stack formation, thus "floating" one over the other due to magnetic repulsion effects. Magnet and TV: A magnet may be moved over a TV screen resulting in different colours appearing on the screen. Explanation: Electrons illuminate various coloured phosphor on the screen. The magnetic fieldca uses the electrons to be deflected andstrike other coloured phosphor, thus causing the various colours when the magnet is brought close to the screen. 400 Appendix H Structure of Databasefor Concept Profile Inventory, Related Learning Experience Inventory, and Researcher Generated Concept Maps Student Concept Profile Inventory (CPI) Related Learning Researcher Name: Experience Generated Concept (RLE) Map < > <----:> (RGCM) <----> Phase Fundamental Category Student Concepts Student Representation of (examples included) Experiences Student Knowledge Pre-visit 1.0 Properties of 1.1 Magnets Attract 1.0 ...... Magnets 1.2 Magnets Repel 1 .0 ....•..•...•.•...•• 2.0 Earth's Magnetic 21 Co� point 2.0 ...... FieldI COqllSse5 , North Applicatioo 22 Earthhas a magnetic field 0.0 ...... 2.0 •.••...... •....•.• 3_0 Properties of 3.1 E1ectricity make. Electricity things work 3.2 Electricity flows tbrough wires 3.0 ...... 4.0 Types of Electricity 4. 1 Ughtning is a form , Electricity of electricity Productioo ' 4.2 Static electricity is a Applicatioo fonn of e1ectricity 4.0 ..•.•.•.•.....•..•.••••• Post-visit 1.0 Properties of 1.1 Magnetscan ruin 1.0 •.•••...•••••••..•...... Magnets TV's 1.2 Heatrepels magnets 1 .0 ...... •..•..•.• 2.0 Earth's Magnetic 21 Magnets can affect 20 ...... Fie ld ' Co�asses , thedirectioo Applicatioo COqIISses point 2.2 . COqIISS point toward magnets 0.0 ...... •...••...... 2.0 .•...... •••....•••• 3.0 Properties of 3.1 Electricity creates Electricity magnetism 3.2 Electricity is movingelectrons 3.0 ...... 4.0 Typesof Electricity 4. 1 Generatorsgenerate , E1ectricity electricity Productioo , 4.2 Static electricity is Applicatioo producedwheo you comb your hair Post- 1.0 Properties of 1.1 Magnetismcan 1.0 ...... Magnets createty electrici activity 1.2 EIectro magnets cease to bemagnets wheo theelectricity is switched off 1.0 ...... •.•..... 20 Earth's Magnetic 2.1 Magnets cause electric 2.0 .••.•.•.••••....•.••..... Field I COqIISse5 , motors to spin Appicatioo 2.2 Electric motors use magnets to make them work 2.0 ...... •...... 0.0 ...... •...... 3.1 Electricity can 3.0 Properties of produce magnetism Electricity 3.2 E1ectricity flowing through a coil of wire willproduce beat 3.0 ...... 4. 1 Electricity is produced by waving a magnet 4.0 Types of E1ectricity overa coil of wire 'Electricity 4.2 Ammeterslmeters Productioo , measure electricity Applicatioo 4.0 ...... 401