the development of science concepts emergent from science ... · the development of science...
TRANSCRIPT
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 and white copies of the original colour graphics.
GUT
QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THESIS EXAMINA TION
CANDIDA TE NAME
CENTRE/RESEARCH CONCENTRA TION
PRINCIPAL SUPERVISOR
ASSOCIA TE SUPERVISOR(S)
THESIS TITLE
David Anderson
Mathematics & Science Education
AlProf Keith Lucas
Dr lan Ginns Dr Lynn Dierking
The Development of Science Concepts Emergent from Science Museum and Post-Visit Activity
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 � £� e_-Name: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Signature ...................................................... .
Panel Chairperson (Principal Supervisor)
Name: ..... �.�.f.. . . . . /:!:�.f�.� .................... .
Signature . . . . . . . r ...................... .
Signature . . . . . . �.f.� . . . . � .... .
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 abovenamed 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.
Name . . �� .�ry.f!S( .1Jf.L.�1 Signature .... �0.
·ff@;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 focused on three areas of
endeavour. Firstly, the establishment of a set of principles for the development of
post-visit activities, from a constructivist framework, to facilitate students' learning
of science. Secondly, to describe and interpret students' scientific understandings :
prior to a visit to a science museum; following a visit to a science museum; and
following 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; following a visit to a science museum; and
following 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 for 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 scientific understanding 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 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 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 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 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 Research Objectives and Methodology 12
1 .5 Summary of Interpretations 13
l.6 Overview of Thesis 14
1 .7 Glossary 17
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 19 2. 1 Introduction 19
2.2 A Historical Perspective of Learning Paradigms 19
2.3 Variations of Cons tructi 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
v i i
2.5 The Influence of Context: Factors Influencing Knowledge 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 context on learning 56 2.5.3.3 The affective domain as a component of the personal context on learning 57
2.6 Studies of Knowledge Construction and Learning 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 Learning Experiences 70 2.8 Summary 75
Chapter 3: Methodology, Methods, and Procedure 79 3.1 Introduction 79 3.2 Research Objectives 80 3.3 Research Methodology 81
3.3.1 Differentiating methodology and methods 81
3.3.2 The epistemological location of the study 82
3.3.3 The methodology 86
3.4 Research Methods 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, and Three 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 and Participants 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 for 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 for the Main Study 125 3.9.1 Probing student knowledge 126
3.9.2 Representing student knowledge - CPI, RLE, and RGCM 127 3.9.2.1 Concept profile inventory (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 and Research Issues 133 3 .10.1 Limitations 13 3
3.10.1.1 Duration of data collection 13 4 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 departmental permission 135 3.10.2.2 Equity of experience 136 3.10.2.3 Conservation of alternate understandings 13 6
3.12 Summary 137
Chapter 4: Outcomes and Conclusions of Stages One and Two 139 4.1 Introduction 13 9 4.2 Stage One: Principles for Development of Post-Visit Activities 139
4.2.1 Background 13 9 4.2.2 Procedure 140 4.2.3 Outcomes and principles for 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 and Data 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 (phase A) 180
5.3.1 Properties of magnets: Phase A 180
5.3.2 Earth's magnetic field, compasses, and application 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 (phase B) 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-Activity Phase (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 initial understanding of magnets and magnetism 233 6.2.2.2 Andrew's initial understandings 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 Development of 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
theory building 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 initial understandings 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 initial understandings of magnets and magnetism 274 6.4.2.2 Roger's initial understandings 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 theory building 286
6.4.4.2 Electricity production: Further progressive differentiation of ideas 289 6.4.4.3 Properties of 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 initial understandings of magneffi and magnetism 297 6.5.2.2 Hazel's initial understandings of electricity 298
6.5.3 Hazel's post-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's post-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 makes electricity 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 personal theory 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 The multiple 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 Effect of Museum and PVA-based Experiences on Learning 347 7.5 Development ofPV As 348
7.5.1 Review of the principles for the development of PV As 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 Review of Principle 4 352
7.6 Significance for Educators and Researchers 352
xii
7.6.1 The significance for teachers and museum educators 7.6.2 The significance for researchers
7.7 Areas for Future Research 7.8 Summary
References
Appendices
xiii
352 355
356 358
361 387
List of Tables
Table 3.1 - Schedule for Piloting Concept Mapping Activities, Interview Protocol, and Methods of Analysis. 105
Table 3.2 - Step by Step Instructions on the Process of Concept Mapping. 106 Table 3.3 - Interview Protocol: 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 (phase A). 123 Table 3.6 - Interview Protocol: Format and Guide Questions -
Post-visit Phase (phase B). 124 Table 3.7 - Interview Protocol: Format and Guide Questions -
Post-activity Phase (phase C). 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 Profile Inventory - Students' Pre-visit Understanding of the
Properties of Magnets. 182 Table 5.2 - Concept Profile Inventory - Students' Pre-Visit Understandings of
Earth's Magnetic Field, Compasses, and Applications of Magnets. 185 Table 5.3 - Concept Profile Inventory - Students' Pre-Visit understandings of
Properties of Electricity. 188 Table 5.4 - Concept Profile Inventory - Students' Pre-Visit Understandings of
the Types of Electricity, Electricity Production, and Applications of Electricity. 191
Table 5.5 - Summary of Student Knowledge Types Interpreted from Phase A. 193 Table 5.6 - Concept Profile Inventory - Students' Post-visit Understanding of
the Properties of Magnets. 200 Table 5.7 - Concept Profile Inventory - 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 from Phase B. 211 Table 5.1 1 - Concept Profile Inventory - Students' Post-Activity Understanding
of the Properties of Magnets. 216 Table 5.12 - Concept Profile Inventory - Students' Post-Activity
Understandings of Earth's Magnetic Field, Compasses, and Applications of Magnets. 219
xiv
Table 5.13 - Concept Profile Inventory - Students' Post-Activity Understandings of Properties of Electricity. 221
Table 5.14 - Concept Profile Inventory - Students' Post-Activity Understandings of the Types of Electricity, Electricity Production, and Applications of Electricity. 224
Table 5.15 - Summary of 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 experience model. 43 Figure 3.1 a - Epistemological location of the study - Relationship between
situated learning paradigm and constructivist paradigm. 85 Figure 3.1b - Epistemological location of the study - View of Figure 3.1 a
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 floor plan. 116 Figure 3.4 - Floor plan of galleries two and three of the Sciencentre. 119 Figure 3.5 - Sample of researcher-generated concept map showing
interconnected nature of concepts. 132 Figure 4.1 a - 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's hand drawn concept map of his understands of magnetism. 159 Figure 4.2b - Nevill's concept map redrawn by the researcher. 160 Figure 4.3a - Kathy's hand drawn 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 and knowledge 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 and knowledge 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 and knowledge 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 and knowledge transformation exemplars. 296 Figure 6.14 - Hazel's pre-visit researcher-generated concept map. 301 Figure 6.15 - Hazel's post-visit researcher-generated concept map. 307 Figure 6.16 - Hazel's post-activity researcher-generated concept map. 312 Figure 6.17 - Heidi's ePI and knowledge 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-activity researcher-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 for the
Signals Exhibition. 390 Appendix E: Post-visit Activities for Stage Three, Phase Three,
Facilitator Instructions. 393
Appendix F: Post-visit Activities for Stage Three, Phase Three: Part One, Student Hand-out. 394 Post-visit Activities for 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 for Concept Profile Inventory, Related Learning Experience Inventory, and Researcher-Generated Concept Maps. 401
xvii
List of Abbreviations
Concept profile inventory (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 for 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
proof reader, 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
for their assistance and support of this study.
xx
The following 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 for 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 Contexts Conference, 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 for 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, 1 980; Diamond,
1 980, 1 986; Dierking, 1 989, 1 994, 1996a, 1 996b; Hilke & Balling, 1 985 ; Falk 1983 ;
Falk, Balling, Dierking, & Dreblow, 1985 ; Gallagher & Snow-Dockser, 1 987 ;
Laetsch, Diamond, Gottfried, & Rosenfeld, 1980; McManus, 1987, 1 988, 1 989,
1 992; Rosnefeld, 1980; Taylor, 1 986). 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, 1 984; Orion & Hofstein,
1 994; Stronck, 1 983) . 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, 1 99 1 ; Feher, 1990; Feher & Rice,
1985 ; Folkomer, 198 1 ; Beiers & McRobbie, 1992; Stronck, 1983 ; Wright, 1 980) .
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, 1 994; Wellington,
1990) . The differing influencing factors 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, 1 986; Koran & Dierking-Shafer, 198 1 ; McManus, 1992; Miller, 1983 ;
Thier & Linn, 1 975; 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 field trips, 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, 1 994; Falk & Dierking, 1992) . Similar to many
contemporary researchers holding a constructivist view of learning (Perkins, 1 992;
Pope & Gillbert, 1 983 ; 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 influencing learning 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, 1 968; Ausubel, Novak, & Hanesian, 1978; Gunstone &
White, 1 992; 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, 1 958) . 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 . , 1 978;
Driver & Bell, 1 986; 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 modified as 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
influenced by the values, beliefs, and cultural context of the individuals (Guba &
Lincoln, 1 989; Lucas & Roth, 1 996; 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
influencing this 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 ( 1 988) 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 influencing roles 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, 1 996b; Dierking &
Falk, 1 994; Diamond, 1986; Falk & Dierking, 1 992; Laetsch et aI . , 1 980; McManus,
1 987; 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 defined as the best informed
and most sophisticated construction on which there is consensus (Guba & Lincoln,
1 989) . 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 findings of 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
after the completion of my undergraduate studies, in 1 988. 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- 1 2 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 field of
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 1 960s 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, 1 980, 1982; Falk, Martin, & Balling, 1 978). 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 findings of this research suggested that students' learning of scientific content
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, 1 997). 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 influenced by a positivist, quantitative
paradigm derived from my physics background.
In 1 995, 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 PV As 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 1 995, I accepted an appointment as a Senior Research
Associate with the Institute for Learning Innovation (the Institute) , based in
1 1
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, 1 997;
Anderson, Garay, Roman, & Fong, 1 997 ; Anderson, 1 996; 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 influenced by 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 1 2 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, 1 994) . These
knowledge states were probed on three occasions : prior to a science centre
experience, following the science centre visit and after participation 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
scientific knowledge 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.
1 3
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 1 2 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 PV A
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 influence the 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
1 5
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 PV As 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 PV A.
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 PV A, 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 significant research 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 learning include:
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 (PV A): 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 .
1 8
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
(PV A) 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 1 800s. 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, 199 1 ) .
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 functional psychology such as Dewey ( 19 16),
James ( 1 890/1950), and Mead ( 19 1 0/1970) 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
influence change in each other. Functionalists viewed learned habits of organisms
not as matters of passive adaptation to fixed environments 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, 1 974) . 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, 1 983) . These views emerged in what is called the "cultural
transmissive" approach to teaching and learning (Perkins, 1 992; Pope & Gillbert,
1 983) . 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 1 950s and 1960s with the work of theorists such
as Chomsky ( 1959) and Bruner ( 1960) who found deficiency with 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, 1 997) . 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 shifted from 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, 1 958) . Ausubel ( 1968), building on the ideas of Pia get and others , viewed
learning which was meaningful to the individual as the assimilation of new
2 1
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 first day 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, 1 978, 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 over this 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 ( 1 998) views constructivism as falling essentially into two camps,
namely, radical constructivism and social constructivism. Radical constructivism
(Glasersfeld, 1 995) 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,
1 978) 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 ( 1 995)
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 ( 1 998), 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 Knowledge
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, 198 1 ;
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, 1 968; Ausubel et al . , 1 978; Carey,
1 987 ; Hewson & Hewson, 1 983; Mintzes, Wandersee, & Novak, 1 997 ; Posner,
Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1 982; 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 defines understanding for that individual. Ausubel ( 1 968)
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 . , ( 1 997) 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-specific knowledge
in the discipline.
Understanding can be conceptualised on differing levels ; for example, on the
content or subject level as in McDermott' s ( 1 988) 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. It can 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, 1 997). 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. 1 67). 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 after the
museum visit" (p. 1 23) . Ausubel ( 1 968), Ausubel et al . ( 1 978), and Mintzes et al .
( 1 997) 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 . , 1 997 ; Posner et aI . , 1 982) .
29
Implicit in the discussion thus far is the role of the existing knowledge of an
individual (cognitive structure) and integration of new or modified knowledge
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 . , 1 978;
Mintzes & Wandersee, 1998; Mintzes et aI . , 1 997) .
Describing learning is a difficult process. 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 briefly in 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 craft a new, more coherent balance between
schemata and sensory evidence (Ginsburg & Opper, 1979; Inhelder & Piaget, 1958 ;
Piaget, 1 970; Roschelle, 1 995).
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, 1 978, Lawson, 199 1 ; 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 ( 1 968) 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 difficult to retrieve; may potentially interfere
in subsequent learning of related concepts ; and are difficult to 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-
3 1
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 . , 1 978). 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 learning is 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: Valsiner and Leung
Having their genesis in Piaget' s theories of conceptual change (Inhelder &
Piaget, 1958 ; Ginsburg & Opper, 1 979; Piaget, 1970; Piaget, 197 1 ) , and in keeping
with the views of Ausubel ( 1 968) , 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 ( 1 988). 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 ( 1 994) .
Figure 2 . 1 represents a knowledge
substructure where a concept "A" is the dominant
concept and is linked to lower order concepts "B"
and "c." Concept "C" is linked to other concepts
"D" and "E," while concept "B" is only indirectly
linked through "A" and "C" to concepts "D" and
"E" e
34
A 1 \ B C / \
D E � F igure 2 . 1 . Knowledge substructure
Figure 2 .2 represents one method by which
know ledge may be constructed through the process
of addition of a concept element. In this instance, a
new concept "F" is added to the knowledge
substructure by joining the primary concept "A,"
although the addition process could equally occur by
attachment to any of the other concept elements
within the knowledge substructure.
Figure 2 .3 describes another process of
knowledge construction - reorganisation. In this
example of learning, no new concepts are added to
the substructure, but the existing elements are
rearranged. For example, prior to reorganisation
(Figure 2. 1 ) , concept "E" was only associated with
A /
� B C F / \
D E Figure 2 .2 . Addition
/A�
B e E / D
F igure 2 . 3 . Reorganisation
"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 rearrangement of 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
become no longer associated with the original
knowledge substructure. For example, concept "B"
disassociates from "A" and the substructure of
knowledge. It should be noted that "B" is not totally
A \ B C / \
D E
F igure 2 .4 . D isassociation
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
substructure, merging involves the attaching of a
whole substructure to another substructure. An
example of such may be the realisation that "A" is
just one form of "X," and that there are other types
of "X" of which "Y," is but one, and has associated
concepts "Z" and "W" linked with it.
/x� A Y
/ \ / \ B C Z w
/ \ D E
F igure 2 . 5 . M erging
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, 1 993) . 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 influenced by Posner et a1 . ( 1 982) .
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 i s 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 . ( 1 982) 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 ( 1 98 1 ) 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 dissatisfied with 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,
198 1 , 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 . ( 1 982), West and Pines ( 1 983) point out that the theoretical descriptions
ignore important nonrational elements and components of conceptual exchange.
Furthermore, Gunstone and White ( 198 1 ) 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: Novakian View
Joseph Novak, having been strongly influenced by 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, 1 998, 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 i s 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 interrelated concepts (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, 1 987 ; Rumelhart & Norman, 1978; Pears all et al . , 1 997). 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 reflection on 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
4 1
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
Social C ontext
Personal Context
Physical Context
Figure 2 . 6 . Interactive Experience Model
contexts (Pope & Gilbert, 1983) .
Arguably, the saliency of these
contexts may be heightened in
science museum settings, which
makes them ideal settings for
studying learning. Figure 2.6
depicts the interaction of these
three contexts (Falk & Dierking,
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, 1 992).
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. 1 52). 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, 1 979;
Diamond, 1 980; Dierking, 1987 ; McManus, 1987, 1 988; Rosenfeld, 1 980; Taylor,
1 986), few, with the exceptions of Blud ( 1990) and Borun, Chambers and Cleghorn
( 1 996), have demonstrated a correlation between observable behaviour and an
independent measure of learning.
Visits to museum settings are, for the most part, enjoyable 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, 1 992; Laetsch et
aI . , 1 980) . Even school field trips 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 64 1 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 first group 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
( 1 959), who contended that the novelty of an environment may induce arousal which
may lead to affiliation with 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 1 2, 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 stratified equally 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 o f exhibits and no overall difference i n 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 ( 1 996) 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
1 29 family units, consisting of 428 individuals were observed to interact at key
exhibits . Families were defined as 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 . After the 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 defined by 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 defined by
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 1 2% 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 influence learning. 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 ( 1 995), 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, 1 997 ; Endsley, 1967; Evans, 1 995 ; Falk & Balling, 1 982;
Falk et aI . , 1 978 ; Kubota & Olstad, 199 1 ; Lubow, Rifkin, & Alek, 1 976; Martin,
Falk, & Balling, 1 98 1 ; 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, 1 980) .
Falk et al . ( 1 978) and Martin et al . ( 1 98 1 ) 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 . , 1 978), some thirty-one children, ranging in age from 10 to 1 3 years
(mean 1 1 .5) were taken to the Smithsonian Institutions Chesapeake Bay Center for
Environmental Studies (CBCES) . The children were divided into two groups. One
group of 1 7 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 grade x
location interaction (F = 6.95, df= 1 p< .0 1) . 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 ( 199 1 ) 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<.OO I ) . 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<.O I ) 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 after the field trip. Their study included 296
students in grades 9 through 1 1 . 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
5 1
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 . ( 1 978) 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 "reflects the
acquaintance of the students with the field trip area" (p. 1 1 16) . 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 field trip. 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 significantly better 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 five point 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 = 1 2.07 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, 1 99 1 ; Wright 1980) . The more senses a visitor employs,
the greater the depth and permanency of learning which occurs (Duterroil , 1 975;
Field, 1 975) . 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 6 1 6 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 ( 1 980) 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 ( 1 994), Orion and Hofstein, ( 1994) , and Kubota and Olstad ( 199 1 ) 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 ANOV A 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, 1 992).
Perhaps one of the most salient factors influencing learning 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, 1 968;
Churchman, 1 985a, 1 985b; Driver & Bell, 1 986; Glasersfeld, 1 984; Posner &
Gertzog, 1 982; Roschell, 1 995; Resnick, 1 983).
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 . ( 1 996) (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, 1 985b, 1 987) , Falk ( 1 983),
Falk et al . ( 1986), Koran and Longino ( 1982), Lakota ( 1 976), Shettel ( 1 973) 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, 1 988). Further, there
have been numerous studies relating to students ' misconceptions, that is prior
knowledge which is constructed differently from the scientifically accepted structure
(Duit, 1 994; Wandersee, Mintzes, & Novak, 1994) . For example, Carey ( 1 985) and
Keil ( 1 979) focus on misconceptions in biology, Lewis ( 199 1 ) and Wiser and Carey
( 1 993) focus on misconceptions in heat and temperature, while Cohen, Eylon and
Ganiel ( 1 993) and Gentner and Gentner ( 1 983) 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 ( 1 983) 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 ( 1 97 1 ) , 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 only attend
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 exemplified by 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 field trip 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 1 2 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 after the 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
( 1 998), Bitgood ( 1 99 1 , 1 989), Javlekar ( 1 989), Lucas ( 1 998), Stoneberg ( 198 1 ) , and
Wolin, Jensen and Ulzheimer ( 1 992), who also assert that visits are most effective
when linked to current classroom instruction and school curriculum.
2.5.3.3 The affective 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, 1 990; Flexer & Borun, 1984; Gottfried, 1979, 1 980; Kimche,
1 978 ; 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 PV As; 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,
1 970) . 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 main effects 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<.OO I ), 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<.OO I ) 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 ( 1 983), who investigated the effects of different types of
museum tours on a total of 8 1 6 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<.00 1 ) 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 field of 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 ( 1 997) 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 1 28
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 field trip 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 field trip; 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. 2 1 5)
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 ( 199 1 ) 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 episodic
(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
6 1
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 ( 1 993) investigated the recollections of 28 visitors ' experiences of
Gallery 33 - 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 Gallery 33 on an A4 sheet of paper, an
average of seven months following the gallery experience. The analysis of the 28
essay accounts yielded 1 38 individual memories which could be separately
identified. Fifty-one percent of all memories related to objects or things in the
gallery; 23% were concerned with episodic events or experiences related to the visit;
1 5% related to feelings and emotions about the visit; 10% were summary memories
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 1 36 postal
requests sent out from the museum.
Wellington ( 1990) critiqued the roles of science centres in society and their
capacity to influence learning 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 ( 1 997) and Stevenson ( 1 99 1 ) , 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
reflected their description of the science concepts of sound production and
transmission. A comparison of these scales, before and after visitation, 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 (Fe her &
Rice, 1 985 ; 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 learner brings to a situation aid
and hinder the acquisition of certain scientific concepts . One study (Feher & Rice,
1 985) 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 1 1 to 1 3 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 ( 1 988) investigated children' s (aged 8 to 1 3 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 ( 1 987) 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= 1 1 8) ; 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 ( 1 985), Rice and
Feher ( 1987), Feher and Rice ( 1 988), Feher ( 1990) , and Gottfried ( 1980) support
several important facets about learning research in museums. First, they support and
strongly reaffirm many 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, 1 992; 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 influence that 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 . ( 1 997) examined successive and progressive changes
in the structural complexity of knowledge held by 1 6 1 (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 ( 1 978). 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 . ( 1 997) 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
( 1 993) 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 scientific understanding
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 ( 1 993) 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 after the 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 sufficiently by 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 1 8
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 unidentified barrier
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
often neglected opportunity to consolidate museum field trip experiences, and that he
could find no studies which investigated the effects of post-field trip activities on
students' learning. A review of the literature largely affirmed Bitgood' s assertion.
Although not exclusively focused on PV As, the research findings of Anderson
( 1 994) , Finson and Enoch ( 1987), Gottfried ( 1980), Koran, Lehman, Shafer, and
Koran ( 1 983) , Stoneberg ( 198 1 ) , 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
five junior 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 . ( 1 983) 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
7 1
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 . ( 1 992) 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 field trip) over time. The study involved two groups of 10
children. In the first year, 10 children visited 1 1 museums on 17 occasions, and in
the second year, 10 children visited 6 museums on 1 2 separate occasions. The
researchers interviewed the children four times over the course of a year: prior to the
field trip visit, immediately after returning to school, at six weeks, and finally one
year after the 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 ( 198 1 ) 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 stratified into 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 PV As 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 reflected in significantly higher class
means and students' post-test scores on the Scientific Attitudes Inventory (SAl) .
However, similar to Stoneberg' s ( 198 1 ) 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, recontextualise, 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 PV As 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 influenced by
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 learning outcomes 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 PV As 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 PV A 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 learning experiences?
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 often gradual, 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 PV As are not
routinely utilised in such circumstances, principles for their development and use
were developed as an integral part of the study.
8 1
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, 1 997) . "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,
1 997 ; 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 ( 1 998), 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 by the contexts in which the individual is situated. According to
Falk and Dierking ( 1 992), 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 . 1 a 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 ( 1 998), 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 . 1 a 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 . 1 a 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 . 1 a 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 . 1 b 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 Constructivism
Radical Constructivism
Constructivist Paradigm
Figure 3. 1 a - Epistemological location of the study - Relationship between situated learning paradigm and constructivist paradigm.
Personal C ontext
Physical C ontext
Social Context
Social Constructivism
Rad ical C onstructivism
Figure 3. 1 b - Epistemological location of the study - View of Figure 3 . 1 a 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 defined within 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,
1 982) . However, Lincoln and Guba ( 1985), see it " . . . defined not 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, 1 995, p. 4 1 ) . 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 ( 1 995) 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 interpretation for the report. Rather, we emphasise placing an interpreter in the field to 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 aim is 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 ( 1 976) refer to such change throughout the course of a study as
progressivejocusing, while Guba and Lincoln ( 1 989) refer to the process as a
herrneneutic cycle. The hermeneutic cycle is defined by 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 flexibility to change direction in response to the
progressive collection and analysis of data.
In further defining the 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 ( 1 995) 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 defined prior 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, 1 986;
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 confirm and refine this 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;
Stage One: Principles for Development and
Design of Post-Visit Activities
Stage Two: Pilot Study - Data Collection
and Analysis
Stage Three: Main Study - Students' Construction of
Knowledge
Figure 3.2 . The inter-relationships between Stages One, Two, & Three
and Stage Three - The interpretation of
students' construction of knowledge from a
visit to a science centre and the subsequent
participation in related PV As. Stages One and
Two helped inform and support Stage Three,
and the outcomes of Stage Three provided
feedback and supported the refinement of the
initial propositions of Stage One. Figure 3 .2
shows the inter-relationships between the
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 1 995, 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 PV As for its visitors . During the period September through
December 1 995, 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 PV As, 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 PV As experiences was an integral part of the planned
research. Second, establishing the principles for the development of educationally
effective PV As 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 field test 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 after the 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, 1 977) 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 reflect on 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, interpretation, 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
9 1
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
Profile Inventories (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 PV A
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, after the 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 ( 1 993) 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 ( 1 977), 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 ( 1 979) 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, 1 990) . As an instructional tool, concept maps provide students with an
opportunity to think about their own learning, and hence become better learners
(Novak, 1 977). 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 ( 1 993) and Gunstone and White ( 1 992) asserted that if
evaluation is defined as 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 for 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, 1 999) .
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 filtered by 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 The evaluation of concept maps
Quantitative evaluation of student-generated concept maps has proven to be a
controversial issue. Liu' s ( 1 993) study revealed that Year 7 students ' concept
mapping scores correlated significantly with their scores on more traditional pencil
and paper assessment instruments in the domain of general science. Fraser and
95
Edwards ( 1 985) 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 ( 1 983)
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 ( 1 983) , Novak and Gowin ( 1984), Schreiber and Abegg ( 1 99 1 ) ,
Vargas and Alvarez ( 1 992), 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/or increased 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 . ( 1 999) 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. In part, 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
1 986). 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 reflect metacognitively 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, 199 1 ) .
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, 1 975; Richardson, Dohrenwend, & Klein, 1 965 ; 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 ( 1 988) 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 for use of different types 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 flexibility to 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 ( 1 985) 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,
1 990) . 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 ; influence of
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 ( 1 985) 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, 1 979).
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.
10 1
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 ( 1 995). 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
1 995), seventeen ( 1 7) written PVAs were developed with the aim of further
developing the cognitive knowledge of students after visiting 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
1 2 to 14 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 they had 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 1 1 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 1 997 . 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 for Piloting Concept Mapping Activities, Interview Protocol, and Methods of Analysis
Time
Day 1 ( 1 hour)
Day 2 ( 1 hour)
Day 3 (3 hours)
Days 4 - 6 (30 hours)
Days 7 - 9 (30 hours)
Days 10 - 20 (80 hours)
Activity
Concept mapping training: Teach students the basics of concept mapping. Practise generating concept maps with a series of "well known" topics.
Generation of detailed concept maps: Facilitate a session where students generate a concept map relating to magnetism, which was a science unit recently completed within their classroom context.
Student Interviews: Identify six students on the basis of the level of 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.
Transcription and analysis of student interviews: Transcribe student interviews and analyse data.
Generate Concept Profile Inventories (CPI) and Related Learning
Experience Inventories (RLE): Generate CPI and RLE for each of the six students and analyse inventories for commonalities.
Review, Reflection and Evaluation of Methods: Critically reflect on pilot study data. Review and evaluate methods in preparation for main study.
3.6.2.2 Concept mapping 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 arrange them 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 classified by 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: Format and Guide Questions - Pilot Study
Interview Steps
1 : Rapport Building
2: Open-Ended Discourse
3: Analysis of StudentGenerated Concept Map
4: Specific Discourse
5: Summation
Interview Protocol
Introduce interviewer to interviewee; Explain the purpose of the 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.
Q: Tell me all that you know about the topic of "Magnetism"; 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.
Q: "When you were asked to make your mind map about magnetism, from where did you draw your ideas?" (Probe: classroom science, lab work, home experiences, books, TV, etc.) 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.
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.
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
PV As. The PV As 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
PV A 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 ( 1 2) 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 - 1 0/7/97
Process Concept mapping training using procedure detailed in Table 3 . 1
Concept mapping exercise relating to the topics of electricity and magnetism.
Selection of 1 2 students for interviews -on the basis of concepts and teacher recommendations.
2 Days - 1 4/7/97 & 1 5/7/97
Interview 1 2 students prior to Sciencentre visit - to probe existing understanding of electricity and magnetism.
Six students on 14/7/97 and six students on 1 5/7/97.
Phase Post-Visit Phase (Phase B) Duration 1 Day - 1 5/7/97
Process Pre-orientation to the Sciencentre -30 minute talk and slide presentation, including student questions.
Phase Duration 1 Day - 23/7/97
1 Day - 1 6/7/97 1 Day - 1 8/7/97
Field trip visit to Concept mapping Sciencentre - 3 exercise relating to hours. the topics of
electricity and Classroom de- magnetism - 40 briefing session - minutes. 15 minutes.
Post-Activity Phase (Phase C) 1 Day - 24/7/97
2 Days - 21/7/97 & 22/7/97
Interviews after Sciencentre visit -to identify and probe changes in existing knowledge states and how these new states were constructed.
Six students on 21 /7/97 and six students on 22/7/97.
2 Days - 25/7/97 & 28/7/97
Process Student participation in post-visit activities -Appendix (E & F).
Concept mapping exercise relating to the topics of electricity and magnetism -40 minutes.
Interviews after post-visit activities - to probe new knowledge states and how these new states were constructed. PV A - Part ( 1 ) - 45
minutes PV A - Part (2) - 30 minutes
1 10
Six students on 25/7/97 and six students on 26/7/97 .
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 field trip 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 reflect upon 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 fulfil the 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.
1 1 1
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 exemplified by 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, classified collections, 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
1 12
to achieve because you have got some subject areas, particularly in 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 fun, 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
reflection on 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.
1 1 3
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 benefits for 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 1 3 males and 1 5
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
1 14
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 signified their 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 ,3 10 sq.ft) of exhibition floor space. Figure 3 .3 depicts the schematic floor plan
of the Sciencentre. The Sciencentre averages 1 50,000 visitors per year, of which
school group visitors on field trips account for 44,000 visits. The staff consists of 1 6
full-time members, five of whom are classified as 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 .
1 1 5
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. 1 64) . 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
1 16
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.
1 17
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 field trip itself, and the classroom-based de-briefing of the
experience. The PV As 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 PV As : Part 1 - Student theories of how the
electricity and magnetism exhibits work and Part 2 - 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, 1 994; Kubota &
Olstad, 1 99 1 ; 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 specific exhibits 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 .
1 1 8
3.8.1.2 Field trip visit to 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 field trip 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 learning resulting 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
identified with a large pink coloured sign saying "Target Exhibit." These six
exhibits (Electric Motor, Generating Electricity, Electricity from a Magnet, Hand
Battery, Curie Point, and Making a Magnet) were the topic of the future PV As
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.
1 19
3.8.1.3 Field trip de-briefing
Upon returning to the classroom, students participated in a 1 5 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 The post-visit activities
PV As 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 PV As were developed. In addition, a subs ample of approximately 1 5
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 1 2 students who were participating in
the interview component of the study, as well as to allow time for the students to
reflect on 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
1 2 1
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 difficulties in arranging the 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 difficulty focusing 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 after morning 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 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. 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 Steps
1 : Rapport Building
2: Open-Ended Discourse
3: Analysis of StudentGenerated Concept Map
4: Specific Discourse
5: Summation
Interview Protocol
Introduce interviewer to interviewee; Explain the purpose of the 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.
Q: "Tell me all that you know about the topics of 'Magnetism' and '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.
Q: "When you were asked to make your mind map about magnetism and electricity, from where did you draw your ideas?" (Probe: classroom science, lab work, home experiences, books, TV, 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: "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.
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.
3.8.2.2 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
1 23
Table 3 .6 Interview Protocol: Format and Guide Questions - Post-Visit ( Phase B)
Interview Steps
1 : Rapport Building
2: Open-Ended Discourse
3: Analysis of StudentGenerated Concept Map
4: Specific Discourse
5: Summation
Interview Protocol
Explain the purpose of the 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.
Q: "Tell me all that you know about the topics of 'Magnetism' and '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.
Q: "When you were asked to make your mind map about magnetism and electricity, from where did you draw your ideas?" (Probe: classroom science, lab work, home experiences, books, TV, Sciencentre 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 " . . . . . "
Q: "What do you think you learnt from visiting the Sciencentre?" 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.
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 .
1 24
Table 3 .7 Interview Protocol: Format and Guide Questions - Post-Activity Phase (Phase C)
Interview Steps
1 : Rapport Building
2: Open-Ended Discourse
3: Analysis of Student Generated Concept Map
4: Specific Discourse
5: Summation
Interview Protocol
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.
Q: "Tell me all that you know about the topics of 'Magnetism' and '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.
Q: "When you were asked to make you mind map about magnetism and electricity, from where did you draw your ideas?" (Probe: classroom science, lab work, home experiences, books, TV, Sciencentre field trip, 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 " . . . . . "
Q: "What do you think you learnt from visiting the Sciencentre?" Q: "What do you think you learnt from 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.
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 1 2, 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
1 25
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 corresponded to student number 1 2 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, 1 992;
Stewart, 1 990; 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 reflect on 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 profile inventories, first developed by Erickson ( 1 979; 1 980) , 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 ( 1 997), who employed the method in representing pre-service
teachers ' understanding of various topics in the physical sciences; Rice ( 1 99 1 ) , who
used them to represent Thai children' s understanding of the concepts of health and
illness; Rollnick and Rutherford ( 1 990) , who used them to represent Swazi primary
school teachers' understandings of air and pressure; and Erickson ( 1 979), who
1 27
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 1 2
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 ( 1 979) 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
1 28
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
1 29
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. In order 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 identified as 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
1 30
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 ( 1 979). 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 deficient in 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
1 3 1
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.
1 32
CMnr,ir,gm.;> poi;;,r;ty ,·f ;; mo;<.;r flfit'!;;t!: t:'!;I
cilf·:-C:j.:�l 3 r(,r)lor ':o�-ln-:.
n1;;Ql1t>>r> art> <iolTli;ltlrnliH> s:, �t::Jflg they mal·:.:�the' "'.II�OO� jUI1l;'l
Which powers the motor POW" electricity m<lgrvASt� mett,;
electricity
Generalof& power$
aioctricity
Ir a magnet goes near a
television it will ruin it
beyond repair
'':'(;mp<::s''<lr; "su,�!ii' po.:.;:-:: f..j::;,:tr
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, 1 997), 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
1 33
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 1 2 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
1 34
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 PV As
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 left out 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.
1 37
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 researcher gained
valuable insights from these experiences, which clarified the research objectives for
the main study.
1 39
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 PV As 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 scientific principles 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 1 2 to 1 5 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 scientific knowledge and understanding relating to signals and
signal processing for a sample of approximately 50 visitors in the age range 1 2 to 1 5
years were informally assessed. This was achieved by informally interviewing5
visitors about their understanding of the concepts portrayed by the Signals exhibits
after they 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-modified and/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.
14 1
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.
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 scientific principles
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 PV As 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, 1 969) and also that of more
recent theorists (Hewson, 1 98 1 , 1982; Mintzes & Wandersee, 1 998; Mintzes et al . ,
1 997 ; Posner e t al . , 1 982; Valsiner & Leung, 1 994) 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 PV A
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, 1 992; Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Rennie & McClafferty, 1 996). 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 they had 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 craft educationally 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, 1 99 1 ; Griffin & Symington, 1997 ; Griffin, 1 998) .
Furthermore, the researcher would argue that there are definite benefits for
conducting PV A experiences contextualised within the classroom-based curriculum.
Linking the experiences to the curriculum provides 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, 1 998;
Wollins et aI . , 1 992) . If PV A 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 scientific expertise 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, 1 998). 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 after liaising 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 PV A experience. On the basis of these discussions, it was concluded,
that PV As 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 scientific principles
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 PV As should be designed in view of that curriculum. The
researcher, and other researchers in the field (Bitgood, 1 99 1 , 1989; Griffin, 1 998;
Javlekar, 1 989; Lucas, 1 998; Stoneberg, 198 1 ; Wollins et aI . , 1 992), 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, PV As 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 PV As 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, 1 998).
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 scientific concepts 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 flexible in 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
definite criteria for developing PV As which provide experiences for the further
development of knowledge relating to scientific principles, 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, 1 996 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 from the morning training session. After the 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
frameworks. Over the course of two days, these six students were interviewed, each
for a period of 30 minutes, about their knowledge and understanding of magnetism,
using their individually generated concept maps as a stimulus for the discussion. The
interviews were audio taped and later transcribed for analysis. Students' ideas and
understandings were identified from the interview transcripts and categorised to form
Concept Profile Inventories (CPI)8, while the experiences which they believed were
responsible for the development of their understandings were categorised to form
their Related Learning Experience (RLE) profile. The fundamental categories for the
CPI and RLE emerged from 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
1 5 1
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
difficult to 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. 1 a 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.
1 52
Figure 4. 1 a. Devin' s hand-drawn concept map of his understandings of magnetism.
Poles are part of North
Poles are part of South
Magnels are poles
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 Learning Experiences 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 for Devin
Fundamental category Student concept (CPI) Related learning experience (RLE)
Properties of Magnets The Earth is a magnet Classroom theory lesson
Magnetic Phenomena
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
Breaking a magnet in half yields two magnets
Classroom experiment
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
Alternative Frameworks The rotation of the Earth is somehow related to its magnetic field
Classroom theory lesson
?
Magnets are used to hypnotise people
Electrical generators have nothing to do with magnets
1 54
TV, books
?
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 and they'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 Earth spins? Can you 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 Earth around the sun and makes the world spin around.
D Okay. So if the Earth wasn'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 and the North pole make like a bridge to join together and they straighten up 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 are in metal and all the other
substances are jumbled up and the poles of the magnet straighten them around and put 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, "contractance" 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 middle right hand side of his concept map.]
De Yeah, it' s a tank of 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, urn plastic, 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
1 57
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 compared with 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.
1 59
// / Magn." attract .
comp •••
� �� '-.
Comp ..... ....
attracted by loadatona
�
North and Norlh or � South and South I1Ipel - �
� Th .... ... frldll·
magn ...
� //
Loadatone le • ma"nat
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.
1 60
Table 4.2 Concept Profile Inventory & Related Learning Experience for 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 wrapped with wire which is connected to electricity
Magnetic Phenomena Magnetic field can pass through different types of materials
A large magnetic field is required to pass through a thick solid material
Metal can be magnetised
Breaking a magnet in half yields two magnets
Classroom experiment
Classroom experiment
?
Classroom experiment
Classroom experiment
Alternative Frameworks Magnets attract more than they repel ? Fridge magnets don't have a 'North' or a 'South' pole
Magnets only have fields in the presence of other magnets
Home-based experiment
?
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.
1 6 1
D Well let's have a look at your map. First thing I want you to do, Nevill, is just give me the "Cook's tour" that means just give me the two minute tour of your map and just pretend you are at a "show and tell" and tell me all about it. Just tell me about it.
N Well I just 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, and urn, 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 North repel. 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 first thing 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 reflect the 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 conflict with 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 .
1 64
...... _ -, /
\ N'kic.\ " " ) . ...... - - -- -� ,/
,. ..... - _. _ - - - ... ,
( (X\\vrld ) "
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
�"::-.::_o---�
A fridge is a useful
place to put magn Metal can be attracted
c=:)b::�=a:::�g;�:ts
by magnots
tridgo
Fridge Metal
By using electricity, you
y Electromagnets can I powered by batterie!
.__-"""-- can magnetise an _---,""" ...... _
electromagnet
Figure 4. 3b. Kathy' s concept map redrawn by the researcher.
1 65
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 &Related Learning Experience for Kathy
Fundamental category
Properties of Magnets
Student concept (CPI)
Magnets have a 'North' and a 'South' pole
Magnets attract and repel one another
Like poles repel and unlike poles attract
Magnets are attracted to certain types of metals
Magnets have magnetic fields
Applications of Magnets Electromagnet is a type of magnet
Magnetic Phenomena
Magnets are used on fridges
Electromagnets are made with a bolt wrapped with wire which is connected to electricity
An electromagnet' s strength is proportional to the number of turns of copper wire about the bolt
Breaking a magnet in half yields two magnets
Metal can be magnetised by stroking it with a magnet
Bashing a magnet against a hard surface decreases its magnetic strength
Theory of Magnetism Metal is magnetised by aligning "bits inside" - Domain theory
Generators have something to do with magnets
Alternative Frameworks Magnets only have fields in the presence of other magnets
Earth's magnetic field keeps things from flying off the Earth.
166
Related learning experience (RLE)
Classroom theory lesson
Classroom theory lesson
Classroom theory lesson
Home-based experiment
Classroom theory lesson
Classroom theory lesson
Personal observation
Class experiment I Mr Wallace
Class experiment
Classroom theory lesson
Classroom theory lesson
Class experiment! Home-based experiment!observation
Classroom theory lesson
?
? Possibly class experiment
?
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 make meaning 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 identify with 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 five paperclips 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 exemplifies this 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 turn it, 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 fully represent the extent of her real understanding of the topic of magnetism.
Perhaps for reasons of not wanting to be wrong, or perhaps the sheer difficulty of
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 fields have a specific pattern. 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 apart there' s a magnetic field in 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.
1 69
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 exemplified by the cases of Nevill, Devin, and Kathy. A description of the
outcomes of Stage Two of the study is provided together with reflections by 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
after brief 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 for most 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 difficult method 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 find it difficult to
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 sufficient context
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,
17 1
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 reflect metacognitively 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 Yeah urn, an electromagnet 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
It became 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 modified to 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 identified after visiting the Sciencentre (Phase B) and after participation
in classroom-based post-visit activities (PVAs) (Phase C). These data are represented in
concept profile inventories (CPIs). In addition, identified knowledge 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 satisfies primarily 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 satisfied through 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 scientific view 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
identified in previous phases of the study are detailed in the CPIs of Phases B and C.
These include 1 ) new concepts not identified in 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 profile inventory, 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 (A0 1 through A 1 2)
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
( 1 992) 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 1 2 case studies : Alice (0 1 ) ; Hazel (02) ; Courtney (03) ; Sam (04) ; Jenny
(05) ; Susan (06) ; AlIen (07) ; Heidi (08); Andrew (09); Greg ( 10) ; Josie ( 1 1 ) ; and Roger
( 1 2) .
5.3 Pre-Visit Phase (Phase A)
5.3.1 Properties of magnets: Phase A
Table 5 . 1 details the overall concept profile inventory for students' (A0 1 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.
1 80
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 . l lA) . Only one
student, Roger (A1 2), appeared to have understandings that magnets could create
electricity.
1 8 1
Table 5 . 1 Concept Profile Inventory - Students ' Pre-visit Understanding of the Properties of
Fu ndamental Category: 1 .0A P roperties 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 l ike 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 . 1 0A Metal can be magnetised by stroking it with another magnet
1 . 1 1 A An "electromagnet' is a type of magnet
1 . 1 2A Magnets have a field
1 . 1 3A Big magnets are stronger than small magnets
1 . 1 4A Magnetism and electricity are somehow related
1 . 1 SA Magnetism is l ike electricity but brings things near instead of making work
1 . 1 6A Magnets are not attracted to people
1 . 1 7 A Magnets use/produce power
1 . 1 8A Magnets attract metal objects because of magnetism
1 . 1 9A 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 .2 1 A 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 .27 A 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 and metals. - A03
1 82
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 o f 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. - A1 2
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
1 83
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, 2.7 A 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 scientifically acceptable 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).
1 84
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 . 1 0A Magnets are used in scientific experiments
2 . 1 1 A Compass needles are made of steel
2 . 1 2A Magnets are used in factories
2 . 1 3A Earth has a North and South magnetic pole
2 . 1 4A Electromagnets are made by passing electricity through a coil of copper wire
2 . 1 SA Electromagnets in motors switch their polarity to keep a motor spinning
Alternative Views
2. 1 6A The North pole of the Earth has a magnet in it
2 . 1 7 A Earth's magnetic field is responsible for the observed effects of gravity
2. 1 BA Lightning is attracted to the Earth due to magnetic forces
2 . 1 9A Compasses use the sun to indicate di rection
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
1 85
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. - Al l
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 identified concepts 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/or water are conductors of electricity, 3 .5A Wood and/or plastic are
insulators of electricity, 3 .6A Electricity can kill you I Electrocute you, 3 .7 A 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 . 1 A), 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
1 86
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 flow concept. 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).
1 87
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. 1 0A Conductors allow electricity to pass through them
3 . 1 1 A Electricity can start fi res
3. 1 2A Insulators do not allow electricity to pass through them
3. 1 3A Metal attracts l ightning
3 . 1 4A Metal becomes hot when conducting electricity
3. 1 5A Electricity produces sparks
3 . 1 6A Electricity takes the path of least resistance
3. 1 7 A Electricity is energy
3 . 1 8A Electricity has positive and negative charge
3 . 1 9A Electrons are microscopiC
3.20A H uman bodies contain mi l l ions of electrons
3.21 A Human body contains electricity
3.22A Electricity will only flow through a complete circuit
3.23A Electricity connects things l ike 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 makes appliances and other things go. - A07
3.2A Electricity flows through wires - 10 Electricity travels through power lines. - A04
1 88
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 turns into 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 electricity it 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 electricity pass 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 kill you 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
3.7 A 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
1 89
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 burnt to 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 Types of
and Fu ndamental Category: 4.0A Types of Electricity, Electricity P roduction, and Appl ications 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 you r hair
4.SA Generators make electricity
4.6A Fossil fuels can be burnt to produce electricity
4.7A Thomas Edison invented the l ight bulb
4.BA A Dynamo turns turbines to generate electricity
4.9A Lightning is produced when water droplets rub together
4. 1 0A 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. 1 2A Batteries are required to make a circuit work
4. 1 3A Batteries are used in science experiments
4 . 1 4A Wires are used to build electric circuits
4. 1 SA Electricity is produced at power stations
4 . 1 6A Light switches are made of plastic to insulate the electricity
4. 1 7 A An electric motor can generate electricity if you spin it in you r hand
4. 1 BA Solar power uses the sun to generate electricity
4 . 1 9A Nuclear power uses plutonium to generate electricity
4.20A Hydro power uses water to generate electricity
4.2 1 A Wind power uses fans to generate electricity
4.22A Wires are in TVs
4.23A Current is in TVs
Altemative views
4.24A Solar power is a form of electricity
4.2SA Light switches and l ightning connect together
4.26A Wires are inside batteries
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
4.3 1 A W i res are in telephone poles
4.32A Multimeters measu re the charge in your body
4.33A Power produces electricity
1 9 1
p o o
o o o
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 i s 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 b e produced b y 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 against a 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. - Al l 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
1 92
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
1 3 % of the identified concepts, while contextual knowledge accounted for only 4%.
Table 5 .5 Summary of Student Knowledge Types Interpretedfrom Phase A
< - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Fundamental Category - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> Total Relative Percent
1 .0A 2.0A 3 .0A 4.0A
Declarative 77 28 69 43 2 1 7 83% Knowledge
Procedural 7 5 2 1 9 33 1 3 % Knowledge
Contextual 6 2 1 1 0 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
1 94
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, l AB 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 TV exhibit
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.
1 97
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 B l l ) , 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 . 1 1B) 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 . l 8B) . In this
1 98
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 "jump" up and down.
Her recontextualised understandings of the repulsion properties of magnets are
encapsulated by concept 1 . 1 2B. 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 di rection it spins
1 .48 Metal can be magnetised
1 .58 Hot metal wi l l not stick to a magnet
1 .68 Magnets do not attract copper
1 .78 Magnets attract only certain types of metal
1 .88 Magnets are needed to make an electric motor
1 .98 Magnets affect the colour of TVs
1 . 1 08 Magnets attract electrons when put next to TVs
1 . 1 1 8 Magnetising metal by stroking it with a magnet causes things in the metal to l ine-up in the same direction
1 . 1 28 Repulsive magnetic forces can be so strong that they make things [other magnets] jump
1 . 1 38 H eat causes metal to be "unmagnetised"
1 . 1 48 Magnetism can pass through solid materials
1 . 1 58 Magnets stick to metal
1 . 1 68 Magnets are attracted to i rons and steel
Alternative Views
1 . 1 78 H eat repels magnets
1 . 1 88 Magnets repel aluminium
1 . 1 98 80th positive and negative are required to make a magnet
1 .208 Two positives will not produce a magnetic force
1 .2 1 8 Two negatives wi l l produce a repulsive force
D D D D C C
D
P D D D
D D P D 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, there was always a sort of a grey mark there. - B02 And magnets can wreck TV s because if you put magnets on the side of it - two different types, a positive and negative, and it can wreck the TV. - B l l
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 turned the 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 Curie Point 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.
20 1
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 from 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 scientific reasoning 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 specific Sciencentre 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 the poles 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 identified in 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 Fu ndamental Category: 2.08 Earth's Magnetic Field, M, B ' F ' � B :I B. B' !I � , . � {f ::::: : �§m :���4� Com passes, and Appl ication of Magnets 0 ' O li, ! Oit ' 1
-¥- � \ ill'''' ' 2 1�f & r 2 . 1 8 Magnets can affect the di rection a compass pOints
2.28 Compasses point toward magnets
2.38 Compasses point to the North and/or South Poles because the needle is
magnetised
2.48 Magnets cause motors to spin
2.58 Compasses are attracted to i ron
2.68 Magnetic North is different from true North
2.78 Compasses point to the magnetic poles of the Earth
Alternative Views
2.88 The magnetic North and South poles of the Earth, plus Earth's gravity all help magnetism work
2.98 G ravity is strongest at the Earth's poles
2 . 1 08 Gravity is strongest at the North pole
" .
��,
1 1 d 1
I 1 �
I, I'
W *
�� 1
11 '� ' .
1
LJr 1 1
'-- '-- -- -
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
1 1
f� � D '
'
D C
�" Y I P D D D
1;1 :: p
liD
, , D
Magnets make compasses go funny and electricity makes compasses go funny. - B02 We turned the 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 the end of that white thing [the Magnetic Field exhibit] . Then when you turned it around, all the compasses
203
would attract and all go [point] the same way. And - I' m not sure how that one worked. - B l l And when you turned that, the copper wire went round on . . . when you turned . . . . no .. yeah . . . . when you turned that, 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 1 2
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 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 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 identified as 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
Fu ndamental Category: 3.08 Properties of Electricity
3 . 1
3 . 2 B 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
3 . 1 0B Lightning can kill you
3 . 1 1 B Thunder is heard after l ightning strikes
3 . 1 2 B The positive and negative associated with electricity are different to the positive and negative associated with magnetism
3 . 1 3B Electric current is electrons moving and bumping each other
Alternative Views
3 . 1 4B Two opposite charges pressing together will "jump" and produce a spark l ike in the Rising Arc exhibit
3 . 1 5B The and negative associated with electricity is the same as the 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 i s made o f lots o f 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
D D D D
p
p
D
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 1 2), 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 flowing through 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
from 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 1 1 ) , 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 Types 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 di rection a compass points
4.68 The Hand Battery can 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 . 1 0 Electricity is produced when a magnet is passed through a coil of wire
4 . 1 1 8 Electric motors use magnets
4 . 1 2 8 8atteries use chemicals to make electricity
4 . 1 38 Solar power can produce electricity
4 . 1 48 Clouds make l ightning
4 . 1 58 Static electricity can make l ightning
Alternative Views
4 . 1 68 Electric motors generate electricity
4 . 1 78 Hands can make electricity
4 .1 88 Electricity is made of volts
4 . 1 9 8 Lightning is made of volts
4.208 Electricity is made when electrons touch one another
4.2 1 8 Friction creates l ightning
4.228 The Hand Battery measures the cu rrent you are letting out of you r body
D D D D P P 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 1 1
4.2B Static electricity is produced when you rub a balloon or comb you hair - 3 I joined [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 and things. - 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 making the 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 1 1
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 they were attached to a metre and it 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 , identified in and substantiated by the data sets .
2 10
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 identified in examples of progressive differentiation of ideas ;
for example, Josie ' s (B l l ) 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 classified as 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 Summary of Student Knowledge Types Interpretedfrom Phase B
< ------------------Fundamental Category----------------> Total Relative Percent
l .OB 2.0B 3 .0B 4.0B
Declarative 23 1 5 1 6 2 1 7 5 68% Knowledge
Procedural 1 1 3 3 1 0 27 26% Knowledge
Contextual 2 3 0 1 6 6% Knowledge
2 1 1
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 briefly in 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 reflected on 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 identified in 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, often in
an attempt to make meaning of their empirical understandings of the PV A phenomena.
2 1 2
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 majority of students the PV As, designed to demonstrate the relationships
between magnetism and electricity in terms of their mutual production, were powerful in
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 . 1 1 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' PV A experience of induction and
making an electromagnet.
2 1 3
More than half of the students (seven of the twelve) developed new, enhanced,
or recontexualised understandings of a magnet' s ability to produce electricity ( 1 . l C) .
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 . 1 9A, 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 identifiable appreciation of some form of this knowledge
1 . lC at the conclusion of the study. Two of these seven students, Alice (CO l ) 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 (C lO),
the concept appeared to be newly developed from the PV A 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 (C 12) 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 flow through an
electromagnet it loses its magnetic properties ( l AC). 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 (C 1 2) , 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
2 14
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 (C 1 1 ) 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 . 1 0C 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 . 1 3) . 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 (C 1 1 ) 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 .
2 1 5
Table 5 . 1 1 Concept Profile Inventory - Students ' Post-Activity Understandings of the Properties of Magnets
-,-
F
-,-
u
:::-
nd
--:
a
-:-
m
_
e
--:-
nt
_
a
_
I
_
C
_
a
_
te
-,
9
:-
o
_
ry
:-
:
....,
1
-:-
•
..".
O
_
C
_
p
_
ro
_
p
_
e
_
rt
_
ie
_
s
_
o
_
f
_
M
_
a9
_
n
_
e
_
ts
____ ' lt1�[1�
1 . 1 C Magnets can create electricity
1 .2C Electromagnets are made by passing electricity through a coi l of wire containing an i ron 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 sol id materials
1 .6C Magnets attract and repel other magnets
1 .7C Heat can "unmagnetise" wi re
1 .BC The i ron 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 i ron
Altemative Views
1 . 1 QC Heat has something to do with magnetism
1 . 1 1 C Magnets repel aluminium
1 . 1 2C An i ron 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 . 1 3C Positive and negative force, gravity, and the South and North magnetic poles all help make magnetism
1 . 1 4C G ravity can create magnetism
1 . 1 SC Positive and negative magnets do not attract each other
1 . 1 6C Thermometers use magnetism to measu re 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 b y 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 field and that, that makes the [iron] bar has a magnetic field too. - C l O
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 turned on - 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. - C 1 2
5.5.2 Earth's magnetic field, compasses, and applications o f magnets: Phase C
Table 5 . 1 2 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
2 17
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 after the 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 PV A
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 fields were
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.
2 1 8
Table 5 . 1 2 Concept Profile Inventory - Students ' Post-Activity Understandings of Earth 's Magnetic
and Fu ndamental Category: 2.0C Earth's Magnetic Field, Compasses , and Appl ication 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 i ron 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 . 1 3 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 . 1 C Electricity can create
magnetism, 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, and 3 .SC Electrons need a magnetic force to make
them travel.
2 1 9
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 (C l 1 ) , this
concept appears to be new and not previously evident in any of the earlier data sets .
However, Andrew (C08) and Roger (C 12) , had expressed this view in Phase A - concept
3 .3A (Table 5 .3) , while Greg (C lO) 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 PV A
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 field producing 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 . 1 3C
Electricity flows faster through copper than other metals, 3 . l4C The + and - of
electricity are the same as the + and - of magnets, 3 . 1 5C Heat has something to do with
the making of electricity 3 . 1 6C 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 . 1 3
Concept Profile Inventory - Students ' Post-Activity Understandings of the Properties of
Fu ndamental Category: 3.0C Properties of Electricity
3 . 1
3.2C Electricity flowing through a coil o f wire will produce heat
3.3C Electricity passing through an i ron fi l led coi l 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
3.BC Electricity can magnetise things
3.9C Electricity makes power
3. 1 QC Electrons travel through wires
3.1 1 C Electrons make up electricity
3 . 1 2C Amps are a measure of the flow of electricity
Alternative Views
3 . 1 3C Electricity flows faster through copper than other metals
3 . 1 4C The + and - of electricity are the same as the + and - of magnets
3 . 1 5C Heat has something to do with the making of electricity
3 . 1 6C Heat has got something to do with charge flowing through wi res
3 . 1 7C 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
D D D D D C
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 bar thing, the iron bar magnet. - C07
22 1
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. - C l 2
3.3C Electricity passing through an iron-filled coil of wire will make an electromagnet - 3 Well, you had the electricity flowing through the wire and into the coil, and then you put the iron core in which then urn the iron core became an electromagnet and then you could pick up the paperclips. - C l 2
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 PV A 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 . 1 1 ) . 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 PV A (4.6C) . Almost half of the students (five of the 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 (C l l ) , 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 (4.2 lC) . 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 4.2 lC 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 Types of Electricity, Electricity Production, and Application of Electricity
Fu ndamental Category: 4.0C Types of Electricity, E lectricity P roduction, and Appl ication 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 coi l the more electricity it will produce
4.5C A big coil of wire spinning in a magnet wi l l 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 tu rns a l ight bulb on
4.1 1 C Static electricity is a type electricity
4. 1 2C W hen electricity is turned off from an electromagnet it will cease to be a magnet
4 . 1 3C Aluminium, copper and moisture help the flow of electricity
4. 1 4C Electric motors are run by magnets
4.1 5C Static electricity can be produced by rubbing a balloon with a cloth combing you r hair
4.1 6C Batteries are made from copper and zinc
4. 1 7C Lightning is a form of static electricity
4.1 8C You brain uses electricity to tell you what to do
4 . 1 9C A transformer wi l l short it self out if it detects a short circuit
4.2QC Magnetic forces cause electrons to move in the coil of wi re which produces an electric current
Altemative Views
4.21 C Dissimilar metals were in part responsible for the production of electricity in the PVA
4.22C A magnetic field rubbing against a coil of wire creates electrons that create electricity
4.23C W hen a magnetic field rubs against a coil it creates friction and this creates electricity
4.24C Electrons are created by friction
4.25C Static electricity is created by waves
4.26C The Hand Battery exhibit measured the amount of electricity in your
4.27C Electrons touching one another produce electricity
4.2BC Ammeters indicate the amount of magnetism
4.29C Magnetic forces cause electrons to touch one another producing electricity
4.3QC More electricity is produced by moving the magnet in front of the coil because of friction
224
D D p D C
c
c
c
D D D P D C
c
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. - C l O
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 1 1
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 PV A - 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 i f 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 modified concepts. 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 . 1 5 shows a total of 1 28 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 . 1 0) of the study.
Table 5 . 1 5 Summary of Student Knowledge Types Interpretedfrom 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 1 9 34 27% Knowledge
Contextual 3 0 1 8 1 2 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 PV A, 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 identified in Phase B : 8) disassociation of
concepts previously identified in previous 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 PV A, 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 PV A 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 Research objective (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 profile inventories
(CPI) for each case and contain the concepts the student held as identified in Phase
A, and the subsequent changes identified in Phase 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 indepth 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
identified knowledge transformations interpreted by the researcher.
23 1
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 . 1 0A Metal can be magnetised by st roking it with another magnet Alternative views 1 .20A Magnets have positive and neg ative ends
sses, and Application of Magnets 2.0A Earth's Magnetic Field, Compa 2 . 1 A Compasses point to the north po 2.2A Earth has a magnetic field
le of the Earth / Point north and/or south
sed in rubbish dumps 2.3A Magnets are used in motors 2.SA Magnets (electro magnets) are u 2.6A A simple compass can be made 2.7A Compass needles are magnetise 2.8A Compass needles point north be
by magnetising a pin in a cork and placing it in a cup of water d
cause they are magnetic assing electricity through a coil of copper wire Cl: 2.1 4A Electromagnets are made by p
Q) 2.1 SA Electromagnets in motors switc h their polarity to keep a motor spinning III «I .c
D.. 3.0A Properties of Electricity
ors of electricity
3.2A Electricity flows through wires 3.3A Electricity can create magnetism 3.4A Metals and/or water are conduct 3.SA Wood and/or plastic are insulato 3.7A Volts and/or amps and/or watts 3.8A Electrons move through wires / t 3.1 0A Conductors allow electricity to 3.1 2A Insulators do not allow electrici
rs of electricity are a measure of electricity ravels in a current
pass through them ty to pass through them
Alternative View 3. 1 8A Electricity has positive and neg ative charge
Production, and Applications of Electrici� 4.0A Types of Electricity, Electricity 4.1 A Lightning is a form of electricity 4.2A Static Electricity is a form of elect 4.3A Batteries make and/or store elect 4.8A A Dynamo turns turbines to gen 4.1 0A Lightning is a discharge of stat
4.32A Multimeters measure the charge
ricity ricity
erate electricity ic electricity from the perspective of a negative charge
in your body
,In "1l ,0 "1l � !D
1 . 1 1 B Magnetising metal by stroking 1 1 .OB Properties of Magnets
it with a magnet causes things in the metal to line-up in the same directio
sses, and Application of Magnets
nd/or South Poles because the needle is 2.0B Earth's Magnetic Field, Compa 2.3B Compasses point to the North a 2.6B Magnetic North is different from true North
ving and bumping each other 3.0B Properties of Electricity '! 3.1 3B Electric current is electrons mo :g Alternative views
magnetised
-&. 3.1 4B Two opposite charges pressing together will "jump" and produce a spark like in the Rising Arc exhibit--<
Production, and Applications of Electricity j 4.0B Types of Electricity, Electricity 4.3B Electricity is created by friction 4.4B Generators generate electricity 4.8B Both positive and negative chan 4.1 1 B Batteries use chemicals to mak
ge are needed to make electricity e electricity
Alternative views 4.22B The Hand Battery measures th e current you are letting out of your body
1 .0C Properties of Magnets 1 . 1 C Magnets can create electricity
1 1 . Emergence 1
ve inside the wire of a solenoid which produced the electricity gnets when the electricity is switched off 1 1 0. Emergence l gh solid materials
� "1l ,0 :D CD " a a '" � c: !!!. oj" !!l-o· t
1 .3C Magnets cause electrons to mo I .4C Electromagnets cease to be ma I .SC Magnetic forces can pass throu 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, Comp asses, and Application of Magnets
3.0C Properties of Electricity
e to make them travel o 3.1 C Electricity can create magnetism Q) 3 SC Electrons need a magnetic forc !!l . • v Alternative Views -&. 3.1 4C The + and - of electricity are th e same as the + and - of magnets
Production, and Application of Electricity g a magnet in front of a coil of wi re
4.0C Types of Electricity, Electricity 4.1 C Electricity is produced by wavin 4.4C The faster you move a magnet 4.1 8C Your brain uses electricity to te 4.1 9C A transformer will short it self 0 4.21 C Magnetic forces cause electro
in front of a coil the more electricity it will produce 1 1 you what to do ut if it detects a short circuit
ns to move in the coil of wire which produces an electric current Alternative Views 4.26C The Hand Battery exhibit mea sured the amount of electricity in your brain
Figure 6. 1 . Andrew' s CPI and knowledge transformation exemplars
+ m 3 '" ca '" :J " .'" "1l �
!" :D '" " a
� c: !!!. oj" !!l-o· :J
... !" "1l ,0 m 3 '" ca '" !'" :J " "1l '" �
!'" � � "1l � p o· rl---< ? :D :D '" '" " a a a ca '" !lJ � :J c: (ij" !!!. �. 00' a !!l- ? ... o· "1l !'" t � "1l
p "1l � !D
Q) !'" "1l p "1l � iD T 1
1 1 . Addition I
6.2.2 Andrew's pre-visit knowledge and understandings
6.2.2.1 Andrew 's initial understanding 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 . l OA) .
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 - sort of 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 floating in 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 around it, 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 i t - below i t 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 flow of 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 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
D How did you know that? A Partly from 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 . 1 2A), the SI units which described qualities
pertaining to electricity (3 .7 A), 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 . 1 SA) . 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. l OA) . 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 identified following the Sciencentre visit as interpreted through
the post-visit data sets . These changes were often not 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 identified changes
included: 1 . 1 1B 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 . 1 3B Electric current is electrons moving and bumping each other;
3 . 14 B 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. 1 1B 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 experiences within 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. l lB) :
D I notice this is a new term that you' ve got in your map [Researcher refers 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. I just 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 learnt that?
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 . 1 1B - Magnetising metal
by stroking it with a magnet causes things in the metal to line up in the same
direction. Concept 1 . 1 1B 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.
It could 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 turns the 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 make electricity" [Researcher points to concepts and links on
24 1
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 urn dynamo 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 first map] , [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 . 1 3B, and 4.2 IB. 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 . 1 8A), and his "motion of electrons" model (3 . 1 3B) :
D You've got some ideas which you' ve been telling me about - repulsion and attraction. How's that all fit in 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 make a 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 exemplified in 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 4.2 1B 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 Battery exhibit:
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 4.2 1B . 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
-""to _ �
� - �
-. � - . mognoI lS_
-"
Figure 6. 3. Andrew's post-visit researcher-generated concept map.
lo ""use<lby _ �
---- �
<lin_ ... gnelS ---gneIS
.-rnagnelS 10 _
-lIICIly
RlPfu
4�s?
�J)
//
�S-"'"�- � ��.;,: ,<-� :>:�:.< / /,< . :,.�. :�, . ,
f beIng _ _ a
- aIeO!IICIly
>:lW'�C�
do··' . AIlfi,d .. .. . . ... . .
. '. , /
�"
.
. � .' " ". . ' �
M4V#;iU:; n<lfiIlis 4fiM?VXi f«ml ttm
nom
CompaSS: �ad&$ are mogool!Soop;<'" Of
.-
6.2.4 Andrew's post-activity knowledge and understandings
The concept mapping activity and probing interview conducted with Andrew
following his PV A experiences also revealed a number of changes in his knowledge
of the topics. Figure 6. 1 , Phase C, shows the conceptual changes identified and
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; l AC 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 after the electricity is switched off; 3 . l C 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. l 8C Your brain uses electricity
to tell you what to do; 4. l 9C 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 Battery exhibit measured the
amount of electricity in your brain.
6.2.4.1 Further examples of progressive differentiation: Personal theory building
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 Battery as 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, the electricity 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 . 1 3B - 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 4.2 1 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 final interview provides evidence for the
identified changes.
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 making electricity [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 first concept map], [because] I didn' t know much then.
6.2.4.3 Knowledge transformation from 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 4.2 lC
(Transformation #1 1 ) . 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
.......... -
!--__ �� «re a '�<pe Qf ____ __
EIeetOOity Ith«:'>tIgh 8 conductor
l� l& . dlstMrge "' - -
ffic prut fJf M ""-
- -�t"""'{tIl<
\ ·�!l.i? " . AlI..-... -®.' .. " ... . . : .» .:."
. . . . . ; . , . . ... \/. .-. ; :3 :.� t • v . .
", . . .
Figure 6.4. Andrew's post-activity researcher-generated concept map.
� .mt1� repcl W'"d " M'f1j � ,,,,,cl
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, PV A, 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 participation in 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 from the
PV A experiences, and as a result, developed further understandings 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 scientific views of science. Specifically, Andrew developed understanding
which led him to believe that the Hand Battery was 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
influence of his prior understandings upon subsequent knowledge development. In numerous cases, concepts previously held, influenced knowledge constructed from
his Sciencentre experiences, and these newly developed understandings further
influenced the development of his understandings that emerged from his PV A
experience.
25 1
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 often appeared 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 streak in 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 language areas 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 identified knowledge
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 . 1 A Magnets can attract ---------------------------.-----_ 1 .5A Magnets are made of metal 1 .6A Magnets stick to refrigerators 1 . 1 2A Magnets have a field 1 . 1 3A Big magnets are stronger than small magnets 1 . 1 7 A 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. 1 6A The North pole of the Earth has a magnet in it
..s:::: c.. 3.0A Properties of Electricity 3. 1 A Electricity makes things work! Powers electrical appliances and l ights 3.2A Electricity flows through wires 3.6A Electricity can kill you / Electrocute you 3.23A Electricity connects things l ike l ights and phones Alternate views 3.28A Electricity needs/uses forces
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
?> ::::;: <1> '" ,... <1> => 5· <0 r
4.4A Static electricity can be produced by rubbing a balloon with a cloth and/or combing your hair
-;0 :u �
1 .08 Properties of Magnets 1 . 1 B Magnet can ruin TVs 1 .2B Magnets make electricity ---------------r.4l..tA\;:diddiiiiri;;lo;;;nl-----+--+--+_-+--1----. 1 .4B Metal can be magnetised 1 .5B Hot metal will not stick to a magnet 1 .6B Magnets do not attract copper ----------------------+-
..... 1 .7B Magnets attract only certain types of metal -----------------+-_____ 1 .8B Magnets are needed to make an electric motor
m 1 . 1 4B Magnetism can pass through solid materials =-------.flss.:-"iE8m;;;;;;e;;rg;;;e;;;n;;;c;;;]e I G) :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
� :> Cl. � o· .=> "1J b . -
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
1 1 .OC Properties of Magnets 1 .2C Electromagnets are made by passing electricity through a coil of wire containing an i ron core 1 . 1 5C Positive and negative magnets do not attract each other 1 . 1 6C Thermometers use magnetism to measure heat ----------------41
() 2.0C Earth's Magnetic Field, Compasses, and Application of Magnets G) :Q 3.0C Properties of Electricity £f 3.1 C Electricity can create magnetism
1
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 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.
�
P "1J � "1J � tJJ
!" "1J �
� �
�
s:: <1> cO �
6.3.2 Josie's pre-visit knowledge and understandings
6.3.2.1 Josie 's initial understandings 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 . 1 3A), magnets had a magnetic
field ( 1 . 1 2A), 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 exemplified by 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 make magnetic 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 Urn metal 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, I think 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 Urn just, 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 Urn well I think the thing is out of the thermometer is a magnet and urn if 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, my Mum' 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 Urn well 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; l AB - 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 Battery can produce electricity; 4.7B - Connecting dissimilar
metals can produce electricity; and 4. 1 5B - Static electricity can make lightning.
258
······ Wlres · . ' , ... etectOOty wires
CID are need to make
. .� b1atic Eieo\rjcity is a fOOl] of electricity
need is need to make � �
� BIg magnets are
, " ' :: . . ' '''.' :." . . ...
strooger tllansmaH : :Ci' ;>. ;:\:: .' magneI$
measure Heat �.... (Temperature)
Are _ make magnetism
Figure 6. 6. Josie's pre-visit rresearcher-generated concept map.
Metal is What makes magneI$
use magnetism to find out the heat (temperature)
or
has magneI$ on a
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
identified understandings 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 her experiences at the Magnet and TV exhibit 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 dissimilar metals, 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 identify the 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 regarded as 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 bar magnet 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 Hair brush.
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 . . .
26 1
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. 1 SB - 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 The 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 I just 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 fact 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 Battery can 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 Battery exhibit 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 ) ,
i t 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
CE.:)-. ... . . . .. . ... . . .
u.mg _ lypelI oI . ' . _ '''''' ... 90Il10 .....
'.
: ' . ' _ .. Il10 '''''911<11
Mete! GM !>e rHlJ.giotiised
...... M"'''�.,..;
�-."'�w�",l,"'U fW".'J n;"q,l'ds {,) is a dIfferefrt type i'"\almH'K';
��'*�
�/
¥. . . ... ... moI«> �
can �S$ through
MOljI\<ts_et
�
�-.. -- �. - -----{ /�_n«
Figure 6. 7. Josie's post-visit researcher-generated concept map.
.--®.otand� . .. .. ' ' . ori � used . " , ".
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 firmly held; Positive and
negative magnets do not attract each other ( 1 . 1 5C) ; Thermometers use magnetism to
measure heat ( 1 . 1 6C) ; 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 (4.2 1 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 I think 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 polarity of 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 concerning these previously
identified understandings, suggested that the concepts may have been reviewed by
J osie and their validity questioned.
D Down here in your first one [Researcher refers 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 #1 1 [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 1 2 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 makes electricity? 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 i s 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 ' ability to produce electricity may have
been progressively differentiated to form Concept 4.2 1C - Dissimilar metals were in
part responsible for the production of electricity in the PV A, and would be
represented by Transformation #9 [P.D., P.T.B] . If this was indeed one of Josie ' s
transformations, then i t 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 difficult to 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 modified understandings 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
identified in 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
� .. ,,",_ . .. �.-.--, MaanetiSm ��-.---�-.-� . . �·���·�--��·- ... k .. ... � .- - . � � � � . . � �.-�.----.• - �
/
thf$ mem m��thmi nwa$!H'0$ how nu.wh
A_ .. _0Il00 10
Figure 6.8. Josie's post-activity researcher-generated concept map.
- �>-ft makoo
Wi ... <>f
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 identified in
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 identified knowledge
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 . l A, 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 . 1 3A, 1 . l 9A) . 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 . l A Magnms can att�m -----------------------------------------------------------------------------, 1 .2A Magnms can repel l . 4A Opposite polarities of magnets att�m each other and l ike 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 . 1 0A Metal can be magnetised by stroking it with another magnet 1 . 1 3A Magnetism and elemricity are somehow related ------------------------------------------------------.... 1 . 1 1 A An "elemromagnef' is a type of magnet 1 . 1 9A Magnets can create elemricity ------------------------------------------------------.._----------___ Alternative views 1 . 20A Electricity may be involved in making mag net 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 i n a cork and placing it i n a cup of water :l 2.7A Compass needles are magnetised J! 2. 1 1 A Compass needles are made of steel Do 2. 1 3A 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 i n a current 3. 1 9A Electrons are microscopic --------------------------------------------------------+--. 3.20A Human bodies contain mi l l ions 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. 1 A Lightn ing 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 com bing your hair 4.7 A Thomas Edison invented the l ight bulb 4. 1 7 A An elemric motor can gene�te electricity if you spin it i n your hand 4. 1 SA Solar power uses the sun to gene�te electricity 4 . 1 9A Nuclear power uses pluton ium to gene�te elemricity ;;;-
m "
4. 20A Hydro power uses water to generate electricity
If j�����;:�, ��OO�L
,
-
A
-
d
-�
-
iti
-
.o
-
n
·
-
, P
_
.
_
D
_
. __ I + __ ... -t ____ ---1f---+ ____ .... -.
!:> 3 '" : " : : : : : : : : : : > ca a. i i i i '" a. " a: 0 0 _'" -"
:0 "tl P P
DJ 2.1 B Magnets can affect the d i remion a compass points :l 2.2B Compasses point toward magnms 1"11 '&. 3.0B Properties of Electricity
4.08 Types of ElectriCity, Electricity Prod uction, and Applications of Electricity
4.9B static elemricity is elemricity which is not moving ------------------------------------1 4 . 1 0B Elemricity is produced when a magnet is passed through a coil of wire
, r :/���a��:;;;::: is mm�,m
,,0
,�'W, : :ml:rns touch one another
J .. � :�g E i;;�;;,���e!'��::de by passing electricity through a coil of wire containing an i ron core 1 . 3C Magnms cause electrons to move inside the wire of a solenoid which produced the elemricity 1 .7C Heat can "unmagnetise" hot wire Alternative Views 1 . 1 0C Heat has something to do with magnetism ....
2.0C Earth's Magnetic Field, Compasses, and Application of Magnets
3.0C Properties of Electricity
o 3.1 C Electricity can create magnetism 011 3.2C Electricity flowing through a coil of wire wil l produce heat 5a. Addition � =: 3.3C Electricity passing through an i ron fil led coil of wire will make an elemromagnet '&. 3.6C Electricity flows from - to +
Alternative Views 3 . 1 5C Heat has someth ing to do with the making of elemricity 3. 1 6C Heat has got something to do with charge flowing through wires
1 I
� !7 s: '" cC :;' '!' "tl ? "tl r '-i �
.. !7 ;c '" 0 0 " [ <:
et or � 0 -" "tl
f � m 3 '" cC '" " 0 _'" :0 3. 1 7C Elemricity is in the form of + and - elemrons -------------------------------------------+------------1
4.0C Types of ElectriCity, Electricity Production, and Application of Electricity
4.1 C Elemricity is produced by waving a magnet i n 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 .
0 <..:.-
!" ;c '" 0 0 " ID � <:
et or � 0 -" "tl }:J "tl '-i �
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 flowing through 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. 1 3A) ; compass needles are made of steel
(2. I IA) ; compass needles are magnetised (2.7 A) ; 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 a compass 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.
D Yes.
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 fifty times 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 learn that?
R Cause we were doing a project on China and see Chinese invented the compass and we learnt that the compass uses magnets.
276
6.4.2.2 Roger's initial understandings of electricity
Also extensive were Roger' s understandings of electricity which included the
concepts : Electricity flows through 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 .2 1A) ; electricity
will only flow through a 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 flow through 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 flow through wires.
R Mmm.
D Yeah.
R Electricity will only flow through 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 in metal 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 a jumper 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 flows as a negative, it could hit a positive thing such as a house or a tree.
Roger appreciated that there were numerous sources from which electicity could
be generated including solar, nuclear, hydro, and wind (4. 1 8A, 4. 1 9A, 4.20A, 4.2 1A)
as well as the fact that an electric motor could generate electricity if you spin it in
your hand (4. 17 A) . 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 flowing electricity 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 finally he came up with carbon fibre and that worked.
D How did you know all that?
R Urn watched this TV show about it and I also have this book called, urn this 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 identified in 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. 1 9B - 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 TV exhibit 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. 1 1 ]
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 TV exhibit 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 scientific phenomenon. 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." [Researcher refers to Roger' s post-visit concept map, Figure 6. 1 1 ] 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
28 1
also progressively differentiated in the light of his prior understandings of static
electricity, Concepts 4.2A and 4.4A.
6.4.3.3 The 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. 1 1 )
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 . 1 1 ] 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 electric charge" (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 . 1 9A). 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 Generator exhibit - 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 turns a 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 confirmed by 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. 1 1
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 . 1 C - Electricity can create magnetism; 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 .6C - Electricity flows from - to +; 3 . 1 5C - Heat has
something to do with the making of electricity; 3 . 1 6C - 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 " .",.oo by �. . . .. ... . .......•... --.- !>'l •• I'l@ m mog.of
M�nQtbm �ffe. tht) pllil)OOO of ft o�'Hn�
Wtum a m-agnehl Gaffi@
afW.thor
ibfctQlb t:"! ootiniud
llIoo!riolty .a. _
Eh�fW., wMn -_···-- woonffiU $Qch: otml:r,
m"&lit filmmriclty
$hI(Ic �""'trloiiy lo &10001olly _ 1 . ... 1
moving (S_I)
E� _ fu""'ilb wJ(oo- wtutn t.>.Iro $1$cU�l\l%
toucll �ach uihei'
When. l:l magnfA gt}$S througb of
!l!:fO.Utta 3 $oreooki it proo� <>Ioolrtolly
A te�kdon m en
of gefU,tra1of
I A G{Snm'l�dM ean ffi$ioo-
- $PfJf!.sn-oo that ft.tOO. 00 --�- -��-.,-.-.. � "l<>el.1oIIy
WMn a turbin@' Is. tummt It pf""�_ .Ioel_y
Figure 6. 1 1. 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 The developing associations of heat, magnetism, and electricity: Personal theory building
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 after the
Sciencentre experience.
The PV A 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 PV A,
specifically, electricity flowing through 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 flow through 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 flowing through 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 learnt anything 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 through a coil of wire will produce heat; 1 . 10C
Heat has something to do with magnetism; 3 . 1 5C - Heat has something to do with
the making of electricity; and 3 . 1 6C - Heat has got something to do with charge
flowing through 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 difficult to 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 PV A
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 reflected and 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 first map (Researcher refers 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 flowing through 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 turned the fridge off for a little while and stuck magnets on when it was on. And then about 30 seconds after we turned it 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 flowing through the fridge?
R I think it' s got a mixture of both. Urn. I think. I' m not quite sure, but, urn, it' s got something to do with the electricity flowing through 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 Electricity production: 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 turned it 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 right in 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 flow through the wire.
D Electrons touching together? That makes electricity?
R Um . . .
D What is electricity? How's it relate to electrons?
R Electrons . . . well, to flow through wire, urn, when the electrons - if a negative and a 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 . 1 9A - 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: Late recontextualisation 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 flows from the negative to the positive
(Concept 3 .6C) . Understandings of the direction of the flow of electricity were
constructed from his awareness that electricity flows through 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 in a direction from
negative to positive.
D "Electricity runs from negative to positive" [Researcher refers to Roger' s post-activity concept map, Figure 6. 1 2]
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 electricity is 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
29 1
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 flow of 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 large scale, 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 said it' 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 something to 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 flowing through them because the electrons don't move until they are pushed against each other.
Figure 6. 1 2 detail Roger' s post-activity RGCM demonstrating the
interconnected nature of his understandings following the PV As.
292
f When magnm (N+N Of S of S) are put
togeth�rtooy repel
�
_et
Figure 6. 12. Roger's post-activity researcher-generated concept map.
When a clfcl1lt Is made mkromerer w uS$d to
me&Sum it
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 PV As. 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 influenced the 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 classified as 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 exemplified by 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 1 0 and the first 6 months of year eight 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. 1 3 details Hazel' s CPI and some of her identified knowledge 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 l ike 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 . 1 0A Metal can be magnetised by stroking it with another magnet
2.0A Earth's Magnetic Field, Compasses, and Application of MagnetE 2.1 A Com passes point to the north pole of the Earth / Point north and/or south
motors 2.3A Magnets are used in 2.4A Compasses are attrac
<C 2.9A Magnets are used in CLI 1/1
ted to magnetic fields / affected by magnets
locks and latches
..:g 3.0A Properties of Electric ity gs work! Powers electrical appl iances and l ights Q. 3.1 A Electricity makes thin
3.2A Electricity flows throu 3.4A Metals and/or water a 3.5A Wood and/or plastic a 3.6A Electricity can ki l l you 3.7A Volts and/or amps an 3.9A Electricity can give yo 3 . 1 1 A Electricity can start f 3 . 1 4A Metal becomes hot w 3 .1 6A Electricity takes the
gh wires re conductors of electricity re insulators of electricity / Electrocute you
d/or watts are a measure of electricity u an electric shock i res
hen conducting electricity path of least resistance
4.0A Types of Electricity, 4.1 A Lightning is a form of
4.5A Generators make ele
Electricity Production, and Applications of Electricitl electricity
ctricity
ts 1 .08 Properties of Magne 1 . 1 B Magnet can ruin TVs 1 .3B Changing the polarity 1 .5B Hot metal will not stic
1 2. Emergence, Recontextual isation , PD. I about an electric motor will change the di rection it spins
k to a magnet Alternative Views 1 . 1 7B Heat repels magnet S
Id, Compasses, and Application of Magnets e direction a compass points
2.08 Earth's Magnetic Fie ID 2.1 B Magnets can affect th 5l 2.4B Magnets cause moto rs to spin m
.s::. Q. 3.08 Properties of Electri city
3.4B Zinc and copper cond 3.8B Electricity affects com
uct electricity passes
, Electricity Production, and Appl ications of Electricitl 4.08 Types of Electricity 4 . 1 B Static electricity is a f 4.2B Static electricity is pro 4.5B Electricity can affect
4.7B Connecti ng dissimi lar
orm of electricity duced when you rub a balloon or comb your hair
the di rection a compass points metals can produce electricity 5. Addition
ts
� » � Q. Q. ;:+ o· -0 .::::J p -0 Cl � <1l ' r- <C !D
:D <1l 0 <C III ::::J U> a o· ::::J
ade by passing electricity through a coil of wire containing an iron cor� e to be magnets when the electricity is switched off 1
1 .0C Properties of Magne 1 .2C Electromagnets are m 1 .4C Electromagnets ceas
2.0C Earth's Magnetic Fi 2.1 C Magnets cause elect
eld, Compasses, and Application of Magnets !Cl ric motors to spin
icity magnetism
() 3.0C Properties of Electr CLI 3.1 C Electricity can create la 3.2C Electricity flowing thr '&. 3.3C Electricity passing th
ough a coil of wire will produce heat rough an i ron filled coi l of wi re will make an electromagnet
Alternative Views 3 . 1 3C Electricity flows fas ter through copper than other metals
' Electricity Production, and Application of Electricit� 4.0C Types of Electricity 4.1 C Electricity is produce 4.6C Only a very small am
d by waving a magnet in front of a coi l of wi re ount of electricity was produced in the PVA
Alternative Views re in part responsible for the production of electricity in the PVA
-0 Cl T
:=-? :D <1l 0 0 - ::::J
:-'" CD � m c: 3 � <1l w' <C e!-<1l 1l" ::::J ::::J 0 !D :D <1l 0 0 ::::J CD � c: � w' e!-O· ::::J '--
�
�il f i 4.20C Dissimilar metal we
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. 1 3 , 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 . l OA) .
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 certain type 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, there ' 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 initial understandings 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 . . . i f 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 arms like 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 flow through 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 (3.7 A) ;
metal becomes hot when conducting electricity (3 . 14A) ; electricity can start fires
(3 . 1 1 A) ; 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 . 1 6A) ; metal is
a conductor of electricity (3 .4A) ; electricity flows through 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 part of 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 it up 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
arn m� from m&m J
.,..-..l.,.,..,.,. _ In
.�l(�-. -- �, =-. - . �
� ,
�
a'G "sod in . " /" '....
•
... /,/ /
-"' ... , '''- '
... ,
t
/ I , " Meg_ a," m .... of '
kliI ycu
.1 d",,* fu " , ' " celflllll \yp8tI of metal
_m wM ..... .,., 1l>� " by atMfdnQ 11\8 ... ......
•• "'P"$ need'" t<> .!1i. I M8lI_ lImro .. _ the _ .... t
",._ 1 .. ", 01,01<> a _ po'" . . ...... '-..
'� �� ... -� M"Iln .. ts _ .. .. S_
Po'"
............ .. . �--..... . . . . . . .j. !>Ohlt '<I ll>. M,",
Nut;!> �>!l!-@ �n:r.,.t:t
� <4
.. �-
�0fif9"- - ""Ill , il10> 11\8 1\10l1li ""'"
R.......- ..... _ -----+-�_,...........( Il10> 11>0 S_ Pole
SM11l> !ill"' • .,! S,,",h � "W$1
Figure 6. 14. Hazel's pre-visit researcher-generated concept map.
. , .. . �
h_
El6cIIfoty ----- ........ -meIII"' lo conduct
h: .$n Ina:ulatQT -or ,/" 'R.......- nm
ohI<>ItIGIIy lo _ --.?"
to " t.>nn of n ..... ohI<>ItIGIIy
10 .....
�
BooI!W!y � · lI\rollflh y<>u, fuccltwM
',," ycu
ff"'"
you an / i'// .. '
,//
i ,/ / £hl<>ltlGlly mall<>$ , / .. iIlII\t bull>a iIlII\t ��"'�.
f / / // �iD 1 ,/ ./ / .hI<>ItIGIIy ,"""" w _ _ ._ · · ·'i'>·.·,,> /// 1neome \yp8tl _ /�.: ___ -- beatem
� malol$ "'""lJO -
.... Ehl<>ltlGlly maltoe rod .... .....
�-, li"'� 1UII$
"�� � maII<>$ _" \yp8tI .. f_ .... 1li/1tt is. 0< .rntl!t!l$Ufit ecf the
o\r"lIfIll> of '"
/1 (' F.� " �
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. 1 3 , 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 identified by 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. 1 3 .
Hazel' s experience with the Magnet and TV exhibit 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." [Researcher refers to the link between "magnets" and "television" on Hazel' s post-visit concept map, Figure 6. 1 5] 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 fix it] - 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
Electricity exhibit, 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. 1 5] . "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 making compasses 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 and lots and lots of compasses. And the metal there was - urn, a sort of like a turning thing. Like a rod. And it had wire coiled around it 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 flowing through 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 fields or are affected by magnets, and 3 .2A
Electricity flows through wires, 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. 1 5) .
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. 1 5] . 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. 1 5) 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 PV A
experience, detailed in Figure 6. 1 3 , 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 . 1 C - Electricity can create magnetism; 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 . 1 3C -
Electricity flows faster 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
N�JR� p-ob ;:H'l>1 11{J4h p<JB fe�l
� �
Every magnet has .. North pole
South .pole and sOl1th pole r$pe!
Figure 6. 15. Hazel's post-visit researcher-generated concept map.
� genemIe$ -
Mag_gone_ mOlats
� _I applio""""
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. 1 3 , 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 I just learnt today, 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 satisfied with 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] .
3 10
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 alternative ways, 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 . 1 C - Electricity can create magnetism.
These processes are represented by Transformation # 9 [P.D.] . While Hazel had
developed Concept 3 . 1 C, which appears on her post-activity concept map (Figure
6. 1 6) , 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 the magnet? 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. 1 6, 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
3 1 1
lroo and copper make electricity when a
magnet is waves above them
Figure 6. 1 6. Hazel 's post-activity researcher-generated concept map.
__ - can produce
Mot",,, can be run hy magnetism
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 final interview:
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 learnt about the copper and iron, the copper and zinc; about the TVs being ruined by magnets; I' ve learnt about 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.
3 1 3
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. 1 8) 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.
3 14
6.6.2 Heidi's pre-visit knowledge and understandings
6.6.2.1 Heidi's initial understandings 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 .2 1A) 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. 1 8] 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. 1 8] .
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.
3 1 5
1 .0A Properties of Magnets 1 . 1 A Magnets can attract 1 .2A Magnets can repel
certain types of metal of metal
1 .3A Magnets can attract 1 .5A Magnets are made 1 .6A Magnets stick to re 1 . 1 8A Magnets attract m Alternative views
frigerators etal objects because of magnetism
lectricity are somehow related through heat 1 .21 A Magnetism and e 1 .23A Magnetism is a fo rce that is positive and negative
ield, Compasses, and Application of Magnet� 2.0A Earth's Magnetic F 2.3A Magnets are used in motors
tricity 3.0A Properties of Elec 3.1 A Electricity makes th 3.2A Electricity flows thr
ings work! Powers electrical appliances and lights ough wires te magnetism <I: 3.3A Electricity can crea 5l 3.4A Metals are a condu 11 3.5A Wood and/or plasti ctors of electricity c are insulators of electricity ou / Electrocute you a. 3.6A Electricity can kill y
3. 1 0A Conductors allow 3.1 2A Insulators do not 3. 1 7 A Electricity is energ Alternative views
electricity to pass through them allow electricity to pass through them
y
3.26A Electricity has pos itive and negative forces which are the same as magnetic positive and negative forces
, Electricity Production, and Applications of Electricit� of electricity a form of electricity
:-" m 3 '" ca '" '" 0 '"
n be produced by rubbing a balloon with a cloth and/or combing your hail'-
4.0A Types of Electricity 4. 1 A Lightning is a form 4.2A Static Electricity is 4.4A Static electricity ca 4.6A Fossil fuels can be 4.9A Lightning is produc 4.1 1 A Static electricity is 4.1 5A Electricity is prod 4.1 6A Light switches are
� bumt to produce electricity
ed when water droplets rub together produced by friction
uced at power stations made of plastic to insulate the electricity
nets ctricity
1 .0B Properties of Mag 1 .28 Magnets make ele 1 .38 Changing the pola Alternative Views
rity about an electric motor will change the direction it spins
1 . 1 98 80th positive and 1 .208 Two positives will 1 .21 8 Two negatives wi
negative are required to make a magnet not produce a magnetic force
1 1 produce a repulsive force
Field, Compasses, and Application of Magneu 2.08 Earth's Magnetic 2.78 Compasses point t
III Alternative Views o the magnetic poles of the Earth
5l 2.88 The magnetic nort h and south poles of the Earth, plus Earth's gravity all help magnetism work-(11 f 3.0B Properties of Elect ricity
g electrons 3.28 Electricity is movin 3.38 Electricity is made 3.58 Water is a conduct 3.68 Conductors carry e Alternative Views
of lots of electrons or of electricity lectricity / Non-conductors do not carry electricity
3. 1 58 The positive and negative associated with electricity is the same as the positive and nega tive associated with magnetism
ity, Electricity Production, and Applications of Electricity 4.0B Types of Electric 4.38 Electricity is create Alternative Views
d by friction
4.21 8 Friction creates lig htning
i .QC Properties of Mag Alternative Views
nets
1 . 1 3C Positive and neg ative force, gravity, and the south and north magnetic e magnetism poles all help mak
1 . 1 4C Gravity can creat e magnetism
2.0C Earth's Magnetic Alternative Views 2.6C Multimeters can te
Field, Compasses, and Application of Magnet�
st the + or • polarity of a magnet
(.) 2.7C The magnetic nort h and south poles plus the Earth's gravity all help magnetism work
Q) ctricity :G 3.0C Properties of Ele f 3.2C Electricity flowing through a coil of wire will produce heat
ity, Electricity Production, and Application of Electricit� 4.0C Types of Electric 4.2C Ammeters/meters 4.5C A big coil of wire s 4.7C Power supplies m 4. 1 3C Aluminium, copp Alternative Views
measure electricity pinning in a magnet will produce electricity at the power station ake/supply electricity er and moisture help the flow of electricity
rubbing against a coil of wire creates electrons that create electricity 4.22C A magnetic field 4.23C When a magneti 4.24C Electrons are cre
c field rubs against a coil it creates friction and this creates electricity ated by friction
Figure 6. 1 7. Heidi ' s CPI and knowledge transformation exemplars.
'" !" :0 '" 0 0 '" iD !S-e !!!. uj" � 0 ? "tJ 0
� "tJ !J
!" m 3 '"
!" ca '" '" m 0 3 $1> '" "tJ ca !J '" '" 0 $1> ;1l p
--1
:'" m 3 '" ca '" '" 0 $1> ..., "tJ 0 !" ' - "tJ P
in !" :0 '" 0 0 3-'" !S-e '" or r-< !!!. er .'" "tJ ,0 "tJ ;.; OJ
D Okay, so I' m just trying to figure this out for myself, can be created by energy, so the electric motor.
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 . 1 2A) , and provided examples of insulating and conducting materials (3 .4A, 3 .SA,
4. 1 6A) . 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. 1 1A) . 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
3 17
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 influenced her
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. 1 8] .
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 urn lightning cause of the, urn, force, the negative and positive force to get the, make lightning, they jump in a bolt to the ground, urn, and friction 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, hair can be made, can make static electricity if rubbed against a balloon, 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 the cloud 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. 1 8 details Heidi ' s pre-visit RGCM concept map.
3 1 8
"�!" :')�.'L ean 00 create<! by
i$ a pu1! _ by soma Ioree Ih& negative _ _ ng f"l'$llMl tt
""" OO foond In (sic)
con
� QID ba ...... Ied by burning _I
at potNer stations
ttict
-,,.,.. .. Y<� �ttrad 011t$:in 4'p�Zi of
work
is o ",,,,, '"
I. -you "- 11ghI SW_ oUl o!; you wculd dle U
were
Figure 6. 18. Heidi' s pre-visit researcher-generated concept map.
plastio
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 .2 1B - 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 carry electricity; 3 . 1 5B - 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. 1 9) :
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. 1 9) You had that in your old map (Figure 6. 1 8).
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. ] .
32 1
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 .2 1 A) . 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. 1 7) , and illustrated by the development of Concepts 1 .2 1A, 2.3A, and 3 . 3A.
6.6.3.3 Heidi's friction 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." [Researcher refers 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 Battery exhibit between Heidi and an explainer (E), shows the
explainer provided guidance concerning the 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 Battery Exhibit with a friend. During the course of her interactions another explainer joins in the interactions.
The explainer provides instructions for 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 friend 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. 1 9 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 identified as being ones which have helped develop detailed
personal theories. Newly identified ideas and concept changes are represented in
Phase C of Heidi ' s CPI (Figure 6. 17) and included: I . 1 3C 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 flowing through 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. 1 3C Aluminium, copper and moisture "help" the flow of
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
Figure 6. 19. Heidi' s post-visit researcher-generated concept map.
r'lro of these forces are caned fepellers because
the repa!
___________ can create ", magnet � {
are m$ci? out of
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 first one we had to make - create electricity with a coil, and the coil was a bit of copper wire wound around a 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 the top 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 field is 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 the wire.
D Now, explain to 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 ofunderstandings
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. 1 9) 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 float round.
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 . 1 3C - 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 scientifically accepted 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 Battery exhibit. 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
�,.��-b-
" . " . � <� .. ;; .-:, . '.: ,,; "
-
ma"(�;3) m.k�JB) m . . .. < .�> : �' . . .. . . . . :'. <-�;·�·�:;�:·:· ·;·:�'i>: ··:·.: · ·· · ·>
I1eIpll1elloWoI
� cm� _________________________ ;>��-.-�
-
_ . ma�field rubS"fIIIIISl 8 copper Jjil--- «>11 "-and 1l1s _ eIodrk:itY
($ ("�th =>�'-'>." 'M��f i " +""
__ a
-Gib) _ be _ by a .�_lIlI>bIt>9inYO« i1alf-1I1s1._
� . . . . .. ; . . .. . ..... .. . . • .. . .. . . . . . -�
Figure 6. 20. Heidi's post-activity researcher-generated concept map.
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 learning are 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 fulfilment of
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 electricity and magnetism: i. prior to a visit to a science centre, ll . following a visit to a science centre, iii. following 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 o f magnets, 2 ) Earth' s magnetic field, compasses, 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=2 17) of the interpreted
concepts, while only 1 3% (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 identified in Phase A.
Interpretation of the Phase B data sets suggested that many students had developed
many additional and modified understandings 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 modified concepts.
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 interpreted by 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 identified following 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 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
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, PV A, 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, 1 978). 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
34 1
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 identified in 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 firmly in 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 Theories
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 identifiable in 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 identifiable character to the knowledge
builders themselves. The following sections will elaborate on each of these
aforementioned unique characteristics of knowledge construction.
7.3.3.1 The unique sets of concepts students possessed and developed
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 The 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 specific knowledge 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 The 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 identified transformations,
with the possible exception of emergence, were regarded as being knowledge
construction processes which build new knowledge and understandings from the old.
The influence that prior knowledge and understandings has on the ways in
which subsequent understandings are developed cannot be underestimated. Even
when Sciencentre or PV A-based experiences are presented in ways that are entirely
scientifically acceptable, and have been carefully crafted in ways which are designed
to help develop scientifically acceptable 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 difficult to 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 . , ( 1 993),
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 scientific view. 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, 1 994) tending towards scientifically acceptable understandings . In keeping
with the views of Shymansky et al . ( 1 993), 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 ( 1 992, 1 997), 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 modified understandings, 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 PV A experiences. Similarly, seemingly insignificant learning experiences
have the potential to affect dramatically the character of 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 influential in 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 PV As in the light of the Stage Three research
findings .
7.5.1 Review of the principles for the development of PV As
Chapter Four defined and 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 refined in keeping with Research Objective (D), Section
3 .2 and restated below:
(D) to review and refine the set of principles for the development ofpost-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 PV A 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 modified to 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, availability of resources, and the formal
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 PV A 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 modified to 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, availability of resources, and the education contexts in which both students and teachers operate both in and outside the formal education 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 to produce 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.
35 1
7.5.1.4 Review of Principle 4
Post-visit activities should be designed so that they encourage the jacilitator
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 Significance for 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 scientific understanding 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, 1 992; Bruner, 1 960) . 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 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 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 often times 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 largely decontextualised 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 reaffirms the 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 reflect and 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 after the individual ' s experiences (Falk &
Dierking, 1 997 ; Wellington, 1 990) . 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 ' learning develops 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 field trip, do not contribute to knowledge and understanding in
isolated ways. Knowledge develops 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 learning product and processes which
produced such knowledge. Studies such as Falk and Dierking ( 1 997), Stevenson
( 199 1 ) , McManus ( 1 993), Persall et al . ( 1 997), and Shymansky et al . ( 1 993),
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 PV A
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 identified and interpreted through
the use of qualitative, interpretive research methods.
Second, PV A 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 PV A 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 identified knowledge 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 effect ofpre-orientating year eight students to the
informal learning environment of a science museum on cognitive learning.
Unpublished Master of Education thesis, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Anderson, D. ( 1 996) . What about AIDS? New York Hall of Science Unpublished
evaluation report, SLi . , Annapolis, Maryland, USA.
Anderson, D. ( 1 998, August) . An analysis of the importance of informal andformal
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. ( 1 997). 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. ( 1 997) .
Summative evaluation research: How things fly. National Air and Space Museum.
Unpublished evaluation report, SLi . , Annapolis, Maryland, USA.
Anderson, D., & Holland, D. ( 1 997). Front-end evaluation research: BioSci
travelling exhibition. Carnegie Science Center. Unpublished evaluation report, SLi . ,
Annapolis, Maryland, USA.
Anderson, D., & Lucas, K.B . ( 1 997) . 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. ( 1 978). 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
family in the promotion of science literacy (Report No. SED-8 1 1 2927).
Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Beyerbach, B . , & Smith, J. ( 1 990) . Using a computerized concept mapping program
to assess pre-service teachers' thinking about effective teaching. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 27, 96 1 -972.
Beiers, R.J . , & McRobbie, c.J. ( 1 992). 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 Journal of Psychology, 41, 79.
Berlyne, D.E. ( 1960) . Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York, NY: McGraw
Hill .
Bernard, R.H. ( 1988). Research methods in cultural anthropology. London: Sage
Publications .
Berry, J.W. ( 1 983) . Textured contexts : Systems and situations in cross-cultural
psychology. In S .H. Irvine & J.W. Berry (Eds.) , Human assessment and cultural
factors (pp. 1 17- 1 25) . Amsterdam: North Holland Press.
362
Benton, D. ( 1 979). Intergenerational interactions in museums. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 40-04A, (University Microfilms No. 7923569).
Biggs, J.B . (Ed) . ( 199 1 ) . Teachingfor learning: The view from cognitive
psychology. Melbourne: Australian Council of Educational Research (ACER).
Bitgood, S . ( 1 989). School field trips : An overview. Visitor Behavior, 4(2), 3-6.
Bitgood, S. ( 199 1 ) . 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, 43-5 1 .
Bogdar, R.c. , & Bikler, S .K. ( 1982) . Qualitative research: An introduction to
theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Boran, R. , & Marek, E.A. ( 1 99 1 ) . 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. ( 1 996). Families are learning in science
museums. Curator, 39(2) , 123- 1 38.
Bousquet, W.S. ( 1982) . An application of Ausubel 's learning theory to
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. ( 1 992). Curriculum development. Sydney: Prentice Hall of Australia.
Bredo, E. ( 1 997) . 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. ( 1 994) . Introduction to research methods. Melbourne: Longman
Cheshire Pty Ltd.
Carey, S . ( 1 985) . Conceptual change in children. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Carey, S. ( 1 986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist,
41 , 1 123- 1 1 30
Carey, S . ( 1 987). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Case, R ( 199 1 ) . Neo-Piagetian theories of child development. In RI. Sternberg &
c.A. Berg (Eds.) , Intellectual development (pp. 1 6 1 - 1 96) . 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- 10 1 ) .
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Charlesworth, W. ( 1 979). An ethological approach to studying intelligence. Human
Development, 22, 2 1 2-2 1 6.
364
Chinnappan, M. , Lawson, M., & Nason, R. ( 1 999, 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. ( 1 959). A review of B.F. Skinner' s verbal behavior. Language, 35( 1 ) ,
1 0 1 - 1 24.
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 9 1 1 )
Churchman, D . ( 1 985b). 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 9 1 2)
Churchman, D. ( 1987) . Visitor behavior at the Melbourne Zoo. Portland, OR:
American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 283 7 1 7) .
Cleare, c.c. ( 1 983) . 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. 272-28 1 ) . Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University.
Cohen, R. , Eylon, B . , & Ganiel, U. ( 1 993). Potential differences and current in
simple circuits : A study of students' concepts. American Journal of Physics,
51 , 407-4 12 .
Cole, M. , & Scribner, S . ( 1 974) . Culture and thought: A psychological introduction.
New York, NY: Wiley.
365
Cone, c.A., & Kendall, K. ( 1 978). Space, time, and family interaction: Visitor
behavior at the science museum of Minnesota. Curator, 21 (3), 245-258 .
Confrey, 1 . ( 1 990) . A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics,
science, and programming. Review of Research in Education, 16, 3-56.
Dewey, 1. ( 1 9 1 6) . 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, 42-0 1A
(University Microfilms No. 8 1 1 30 12) .
Diamond, 1. ( 1986). The behaviour of family groups in science museums. Curator,
29(2), 1 39- 1 54.
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.
Journal of 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, 1 9-4 1 .
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 Informal Science Education papers (pp23-44),
Philadelphia, P A: Franklin Institute Science Museum.
Dierking, L. , Anderson, D. , Abrams, c. , Kramer, R, & Gronborg, J. ( 1 998). 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 learning in informal
science settings : A review of the research. Science Education, 78( 1 ) , 57-72.
diSessa, A. ( 1 988) . Knowledge in pieces . In G. Forman & P.B . Pufall (Eds.) ,
Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Donaldson, M. ( 1 978). Children 's minds. London: FontanalCollins.
Driver, RA. ( 1 983) . 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 o f 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 ' alternative frameworks and
science education (3rd ed. , pp. xxii-xlii) . Kie1, Germany: University of Kiel.
Duterroil, A. ( 1 975) . Museum education: Recent trends in learning environments.
San Antonio: Texas University.
367
Dymond, F. , Goodrum, D. , & Kerr, I. ( 1 990) . 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, 4 1 1 -4 1 2.
Erickson, G.L. ( 1 979). Children' s conceptions of heat and temperature. Science
Education, 63(2) , 22 1 -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. 1 19- 1 6 1 ) . London: Simon &
Schuster and Prentice Hall International.
Evans, G.W. ( 1 995). Learning and the physical environment. In I.H. Falk & L.D.
Dierking (Eds. ) , Public institutions for personal learning: Establishing a research
agenda (pp. 1 19- 1 26) . Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
Eylon, B . , & Linn, M.C. ( 1 988). Learning and instruction: An examination of four
research perspectives in science education. Review of Educational Research,
58(3), 25 1 -30 l .
Falk, I.H. ( 1 983) . Field trips : A look at environmental effects on learning. Journal
of Biological Education, 1 7(2) , 1 37- 1 4 1 .
Falk, I .H., & Balling I.D. ( 1980) . The school field trip: Where you go makes the
difference. Science and Children, 1 7(6), 6-8 .
368
Falk, J .H., & Balling, J.D. ( 1982). The field trip milieu: Learning and behavior as a
function of contextual events. Journal of Educational Research, 76( 1 ) , 22-28 .
Falk, J .H., & Dierking, L.D. ( 1 992). The museum experience. Washington, DC:
Whaleback Books
Falk, J .H., & Dierking, L.D. ( 1 995). Public institutions for personal learning:
Establishing a research agenda. Washington, DC: Amercian Association of
Museums.
Falk, J .H., & Dierking, L.D. ( 1 997) . School field trips : Assessing their long-term
impact. Curator, 40(3), 2 1 1 -2 1 8
Falk, J .H., Koran, J.J . , Dierking, L.D. , & Dreblow, L. ( 1 985). 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. ( 1 978). The novel field-trip phenomenon:
Adjustment to novel settings interferes with task learning. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 15(2), 1 27- 1 34.
Feher, E. ( 1 990) . Interactive museum exhibits as tools for learning: Exploration
with light. International Journal of Science Education, 12( 1 ) , 35-39.
Feher, E. , & Rice, K. ( 1 985). Development of scientific concepts through the use of
interactive exhibits in a museum. Curator, 28( 1 ), 35-46
Feher, E. , & Rice, K. ( 1 988). Shadows and anti-images : Children' s conceptions of
light and vision n. Science Education, 7(5), 637-649
369
Field, B . ( 1 975) . Hands on museums: Partners in learning. New York: Education
Facilities Labs.
Finson, K.D. , & Enochs, L.G. ( 1 987) . Student attitudes toward science-technology
society resulting from visitation to a science-technology museum. Journal of
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. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 21 (9), 863-873 .
Folkomer, T.H. ( 198 1 ) . Comparison of three methods of teaching geology in junior
science school. Journal of Geological Education, 29, 74-75.
Fraser, K., & Edwards, J. ( 1 985). The effect of training in concept mapping on
student achievement in traditional tests. Research in Science Education, 15, 1 58-
1 65
Gallagher, J .M., & Snow-Dockser, L. ( 1987). Parent-child interactions in a museum
for pre-school children. Children 's Environments Quarterly, 4( 1 ) , 4 1 -45 .
Gentner, D. , & Gentner, D.R. ( 1 983). Flowing waters in teeming crowds : Mental
models of electricity. In D. Gentner & A.L. Stevens (Eds.) , Mental models (pp. 99-
1 29). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Gergen, K.J. ( 1 995). 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. ( 1 983) . Conceptions, misconceptions and alternative
conceptions : Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science
Education, iO, 6 1 -98.
Ginsburg, H. , & Opper, S . ( 1 979). Piaget 's theory of intellectual development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall .
Glaser, R. , & Bassok, M. ( 1989) . Learning theory and the study of instruction.
Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 63 1 -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 ( 1 995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning.
Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
Gorden, R.L. ( 1 975). interviewing: Strategies, techniques, and tactics. Homewood,
IL: Dorsey Press.
Gottfried, J.L. ( 1 979) . 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) , 1 65- 174.
Griffin, J.N. ( 1 998) . School-museum integrated learning experiences in science: A
learning journey. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Technology,
Sydney.
Griffin, J . , & Symington, D. ( 1 997) . Moving from task-oriented to learning-oriented
strategies on school excursions to museums. Science Education, 8i (6), 763-779.
37 1
Guba, F.G. , & Lincoln, Y.S. ( 1 989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Gunstone, RF. , & White, RT. ( 198 1 ) . Understanding gravity. Science Education,
65(3) , 29 1 -299.
Gunstone, R, & White, R ( 1 992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer Press.
Hewson, P.W. ( 198 1 ) . A conceptual change approach to learning science.
European Journal of Science Education, 3, 383-396.
Hewson, P.W. ( 1982). A case study of conceptual change in special relativity: The
influence of prior knowledge in learning. European Journal of Science Education, 4,
6 1 -78.
Hewson, M., & Hewson, P.W. ( 1 983). Effect of instruction using students ' prior
knowledge and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 20(8) , 73 1 -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 family in the promotion of science literacy
(pp. 1 34- 1 57) (Final Report for NSF Grant, SED -8 1 12927). Washington, DC:
National Science Foundation.
Hoz, R, Tomer, Y., & Tamir, P. ( 1 990) . The relations between disciplinary and
pedagogical knowledge and the length of teaching experience of biology and
geography teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 973-988.
372
Hynd, CR., Alvermann, D.E., & Qian, G. ( 1 993). Prospective teachers '
comprehension and teaching of a complex science concept (Reading Research
Report 4). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center.
Inhelder, B . , & Piaget, J. ( 1 958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to
adolescence: An essay on the construction offormal operational structures.
London: Routledge.
Irvine, S .H. , & Berry, J.W. ( 1 988). The abilities of mankind: A reevaluation. In
S .H. Irvine & J.W. Berry (Eds.) , Human abilities in cultural context (pp. 3-59). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
James, W. ( 1 890/ 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. 1 68- 179).
J acksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.
Keil, F.C ( 1 979). Semantic and conceptual development: An ontological
perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kimche, L. ( 1 978). Science centers : A potential for learning, Science, 199, 270-273 .
Koran, J .J . , Lehman J.R. , Shafer, L.D. , & Koran M.L. ( 1 983) . The relative effects of
pre and post attention directing devices on learning from a "walk-through" museum
exhibit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(4), 34 1 -346.
Koran, J .J . , & Longino, S .J. ( 1 982). Curiosity and children's science learning.
Science and Children, 20, 1 8- 19.
373
Koran, J.J. Jr. , & Dierking-Shafer, L.D. , ( 1 98 1 ) . 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. ( 1 99 1 ) . Effects of novelty-reducing preparation on
exploratory behavior and cognitive learning in a science museum setting. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 28(3), 225-234
Lakota, RA. ( 1 976). The national museum of natural history as a behavioral
environment (2 parts) , Washington, DC: Office of Museum Programs, Smithsonian
Institution.
Lam-Kan, K.S . ( 1 985). The contributions of enrichmet activities towards science
interest and science achievment. Unpublished MEd Thesis, National University of
Singapore.
Lave, J. ( 1 988). 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. ( 1 980) . Children and
family groups in science centers . Science and Children, 1 7(6) , 14- 17 .
Lancy, D.F. ( 1 993) . 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. ( 199 1 ) . Is Piaget' s epistemic subject dead? Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 28, 58 1 -592.
Lewis, E.L. ( 199 1 ) . 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. ( 1 985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbery Park, CA: Sage
Liu, x. ( 1 993, June) . The validity and reliability 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 validity and reliability of 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. ( 1 976). The context effect: The relationship
between stimulus, pre-exposure and environmental pre-exposure determines
subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior
Processes, 2( 1 ) , 38-47 .
Lucas, K.B . , & Roth, W-M. ( 1996) . The nature of scientific knowledge and student
learning: Two longitudinal case studies . Research in Science Education, 26( 1 ) ,
103- 1 27
Lucas, A.M. , McMannus, P. , & Thomas, G. ( 1986) . Investigating learning from
informal sources : Listening to conversations and observing play in science museums.
European Journal of Science Education, 8(4), 34 1 -352.
375
Lucas, K.B . ( 1 998). 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. ( 198 1 ) . Environmental effects on
learning: The outdoor field trip. Science Education, 65(3), 301 -309.
Matthews, M.R. ( 1 997) . Introductory comments on philosophy and constructivism
in science education. Science & Education, 6( 1 -2), 5- 14.
McCloskey, M. ( 1 983) . Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens
(Eds.) , Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McDermott, L.e. ( 1 988). A view from physics . In M. Mardner, J. Greeno, F. Reif,
& A. Schoenfeld. (Eds.) , Towards a scientific practice 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 International Journal of
Museum Management and Curatorship, 6(3), 263-270.
McManus, P.M. ( 1 988). Good companions: More on the social determination of
learning-related behaviour in a science museum. The International Journal of
Museum Management and Curatorship, 7( 1 ) , 37-44.
McManus, P.M. ( 1 989) . Oh yes they do ! How visitors read labels and interact with
exhibit texts. Curator, 32(2), 174- 198.
376
McManus, P.M. ( 1 992). Topics in museums and science education. Studies in
Science Education, 20, 1 57- 1 82.
McManus, P.M. ( 1 993). Memories as indicators of the impact of museum visits .
Museum Management and Curatorship, 12, 367-380.
McRobbie, c.J . , & Tobin, K. ( 1 995). Restraints to reform: The congruence of
teacher and student actions in a chemistry classroom. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 32(4), 373-385.
The Macquarie Dictionary ( 1 997) . A. Delbridge, J. Bernard, D.Blair, S . Butler, D.
Peters, & C. Yallop (Eds.) (3rd Edition) , The Macquarie Library Pty Ltd.
Mead, G.H. ( 1 9 1 011970) . Social consciousness and the consciousness of meaning.
In H.S . Thayer (Ed.), Pragmatism: The classic writings (pp. 34 1 -350). New York:
Mentor Books.
Measor, L. ( 1 985) . 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. ( 1 965). Children's preferences for differing degrees of novelty. Child
Development, 36, 453-465 .
Miller, H.G. ( 1 983) . Adult education in museums and public libraries. School of
Technical Careers, Southern lllinois University at Carbondale, U.S .A. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 23 1 986)
Minstrell, J . ( 1 992). Facets of students' knowledge and relevant instruction. In R.
Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.) , The Proceedings of the International
Workshop on Research in Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical
Studies (pp. 1 -25). Bremen, Germany: Kiel.
377
Mintzes, J .J . , & Wandersee, J.H. ( 1 998). Reform and innovation in science
teaching: A human constructivist view. In J.J. Mintzes, J.H. Wandersee, & J.D.
Novak (Eds.) , Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view
(pp. 30-58) . San Diego: Academic Press.
Mintzes, J.J., Wandersee, J.H., & Novak, J.D. ( 1 997) . Meaningful learning in
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. ( 1 970) . The development field test and validation of
an inventory of scientific attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7, 85-
94.
Novak, J . D. ( 1 977). A theory of education. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Novak, J.D., & Gowin, D.B. ( 1984) . Learning how to learn. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Novak, J .D. , Gowin, D.B. , & Johansen, G.T. ( 1 983). The use of concept mapping
and knowledge Vee mapping with junior high school science students. Science
Education, 67(5), 625-645 .
O'Loughlin, M. ( 1 992) . Rethinking science education: Beyond Piagetian
constructivism toward a sociocultural model of teaching and learning. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 29(8), 79 1 -820.
Orion, N., & Hofstein, A. ( 1 994) . Factors that influence learning during a scientific
field trip in a natural environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(8),
1 097- 1 1 19 .
378
Parlett, M. , & Hamilton, D. ( 1 976). Evaluation as illumination: A new approach to
the study of innovative programmes. Evaluation Studies Review Annual, 1 , 140- 1 57 .
Pearsall, N.R. , Skipper, J .J . , & Mintzes, J .J . ( 1 997) . Knowledge restructuring in the
life sciences : A longitudinal study of conceptual change in biology. Science
Education, 81 , 1 93-2 1 5 .
Peart, B . ( 1984) . Impact of exhibit type on knowledge gain, attitudes, and
behaviour. Curator, 27(3), 220-237.
Perkins, D. ( 1 992). Smart schools: From training memories to educating minds.
New York: Free Press.
Phye, G.D. ( 1 992). Stategic transfer: A tool for academic problem solving.
Educational Psychology Review, 4, 393-420.
Piaget, J. ( 1 970) . The child 's conception of movement and speed. New York: Basic
Books.
Piaget, J. ( 1 97 1 ) . Biology and knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pope, M., & Gilbert, J . ( 1 983). Personal experience and the construction of
knowledge in science. Science Education, 67(2) , 1 93-203 .
Posner, G.J. ( 1 98 1 , 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. ( 1 982) . 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 scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science
Education, 66, 2 1 1 -227 .
Postman, N. , & Weingartner, L. ( 197 1) . Teaching as a subversive activity.
Hammondsworth: Penguin.
Pryce, K. ( 1 979). Endless pressure. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Rafferty, C.D. ( 1 993). Concept mapping: A viable alternative to objective and essay
exams. Reading, Research and Instruction, 32(3) , 25-34.
Rennie, L.J . , & McClafferty, T.P. ( 1 996) . Science centres and science learning.
Studies in Science Education, 27, 53-98.
Resnick, L.B . ( 1 983) . Mathematics and science learning: A new conception.
Science, 220, 477-478.
Rice, P. ( 1 99 1 ) . Concepts of health and illness in Thai children. International
Journal of 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. ( 1 965). Interviewing: Itsforms and
functions. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Rochelle, J. ( 1 995) . Learning in interactive environments : Prior knowledge and new
experience. In J.H. Falk & L.D. Dierking (Eds.) , Public institutions for personal
learning: Establishing a research agenda (pp. 37-5 1 ) . 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 Journal of Science
Education, 12( 1 ) , 10 1 - 1 1 3 .
Rosenfeld, S . ( 1980) . Informal education in zoos: Naturalistic studies infamily
groups. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Royer, J., Cisero, c.A., & Carlo, M.S . ( 1 993). Techniques and procedures for
assessing cognitive skills. Review of Educational Research, 63, 20 1 -224.
Rumelhart, D., & Norman, D. ( 1 978). Accretion, tuning and restructuring: Three
modes of learning. In J. Cotton & R Klateky (Eds.) , Semantic factors in cognition
(pp. 37-53) . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schachter, S . ( 1 959). The psychology of affiliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Schreiber, D.A., & Abegg, G.L. ( 1 99 1 , 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. ( 199 1 ) . Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers
in education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Shettel, H.H. ( 1 973) . Exhibits : Art form or educational medium? Museum News,
52( 1 ) , 32-34.
Shiffrin, RM., & Dumais, S .T. ( 198 1 ) . The development of automatism. In J.R
Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp 1 23- 140) . Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
38 1
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.
Rosenfeld, 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 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 1. Cotton & R. Klateky (Eds.), Semantic factors 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, 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 form 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. ( 1 993) . 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 . Journal of 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. ( 1 997) . Examining the construction
process: A study of changes in level 10 students' understanding of classical
mechanics . Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(7), 57 1 -593 .
Skinner, B .F. ( 1 974) . About behaviorism. New York: Random House.
Spradley, J.P. ( 1 979). The ethnographics interview. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich College Publishers .
Stake, RE. ( 1 995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Staver, J .R ( 1 998, April) . Constructivism: Sound theory for 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. ( 1 99 1 ) . The long-term impact of interactive exhibits . International
Journal of Science Education, 13(5), 52 1 -53 1 .
Stew art, J . ( 1 990) . Techniques for assessing and representing information in
cognitive structure. Science Education, 64(2), 223-235 .
Stewart, J . , Van Kirk, J . , & Rowell, R ( 1 979). Concept maps: A tool for use in
biology teaching. American Biology Teacher, 41(3), 17 1 - 175 .
382
Stoneberg, S .A. ( 1 98 1 ) . The effects ofpre-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 ( 1 983) . The comparative effects of different museum tours on
children' s attitudes and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(4),
283-290.
Suchting, W.A. ( 1 992). 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 Journal of Science Education, 2(2), 107-
1 20.
Taylor, N. ( 1 997). Fiji pre-service teachers ' understanding of physical science: A
cultural perspective. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Taylor, S . ( 1 986) . Understanding processes of informal education: A naturalistic
study of visitors to a public aquarium. Dissertation Abstracts International, 48-05A
(University Microfilms No. 87 1 8 179).
Tennyson, RD. ( 1 989) . 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. ( 1 992) . An educational learning theory for instructional design.
Educational Technology, 1 (32), 36-4 1 .
383
Tennyson, RD., & Rasch, M. ( 1 989) . Linking cognitive learning theory to
instructional prescriptions. Instructional Science, 1 7, 369-385.
Thier, H.D. , & Linn, M.C. ( 1 975). 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 1 82 1 56)
Tobin, K. , & McRobbie, c.J. ( 1 996). Cultural myths as restrainst to the enacted
science curriculum. Science Education, 80(2), 223-24 1 .
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. 203-2 17) . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vargas, E.M. , & Alvarez, H.J. ( 1 992). Mapping out students' abilities . Science
Scope, 15(6), 4 1 -43 .
Vygotsky, L.S . ( 1 978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wallace, J.D., & Mintzes, J.J. ( 1 990) . The concept map as a research tool :
Exploring conceptual change in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
27( 1 0) , 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. 1 3 1 - 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. ( 1 983). How "rational" is rationality? Science
Education, 67, 37-39.
Wiser, M. , & Carey, S . ( 1 993). 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. ( 1 992). Children' s memories of museum
field trips : A qualitative study. Journal of Museum Education, 1 7(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 . Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1 7(2), 99-
104.
385
Appendicies
Appendix A
Student Hand-Out: Practice Exercise - Making a Mind Map
M in d M ap 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 think how a term might be related to any of the other terms in your map , you don't have to use that term.
/ -- - - - - -........
/ "-
( ') The Sun " J "- /
---- .....-- - - -
--- - -
-/' ----/ "-
( Carbon \) " Dioxide J
"- / '-. .....-
-- -- - -..... /' ----
/ "-
( Tick j J
/ .....-
/ -- - - - -- ........... / "-
( � J
/ .....-
/ -- - - - - -......... / "-
( � " J
"'- / ---- .....-
- - - -
387
/ -- - - - - -........ / "-
( ') Cow " J
"'- / ---- .....-
- - - -
/ -- - - - - -........
/ "-
( � \ J
"'-- ........... _ - - -- ..-/ /
/ -- - - - - -.........
/ "'-
( ') Humans \ J
'-..... --- - - - - --- /
Appendix B
Student Hand-Out: Making a Mind Map About Magnetism
M ind M ap 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 b etween 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 Hand-Out: Making a Mind Map About Magnetism & Electricity: Main Study
M ind M ap 1 . Think about tbe 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 related or connected
to each other. 4. Draw connecting arrows b etween 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. 1 1 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
1 1 '"
389
Appendix D
Samples of Post-visit Activities Developed at RFSCfor the Signals Exhibition
Analog and D i g ita l Objective: 1 . To ide ntify and justify d ifferences between ana log a n d d igital methods
of storing and retrieving signals. 2. To ident ify and justify differences between analog and digital methods
of sending and receiving s igna ls .
Related Exh i b i ts : • B inary Numbers . • D igit ize it.
M aterials:
o Noisy Signals .
o Record G rooves . o Fragments of Jericho. * Fax It . o infrared Light Transmitter.
Pen, Paper, Worksheet, and a Partner.
To Do : Below are two headings: Ways of Storing and Retrieving S ignals and Ways of Sending and Receiving Signals, each of which conta in a number of items.
1 . Working with a partner, d raw a large table similar to the one below. 2. From the l ist of items contained within each category, c lassify each item as be i ng either
"Digital" or "Analog" and just ify why you believe that item fits into that classification.
Ways of Stori n g and Retrievi ng Signals: Vinyl Records, Compact Discs, Audio Cassettes , Video Tap e , Floppy Discs, Video Disc, Books, Microfich e , Hologram , H u man Genes, and Card C ata l o g .
Way o f Sen d i n g and Receiving Signals: FM Radio , Fibe r Optics , Co-axial Cable , 1 6 Bit R i b bon Cable, Copper W i re , Semaphore, Smoke Signals , AM Radio, Microwaves, Gestu res, E-mail , and Sound W aves.
3. In your own words, write a couple of sentence which describe the difference between:
(i) An analog and a dig ital way of storing and retrieving s igna ls .
(ii) An analog and a digital way of sending and receiving s igna ls .
4. Compare you answers with the rest of the class in a teacher-directed class discussion.
390
Livi ng Sig nals Objective : 1 . To explore the signals that animals send to other an ima ls , including how
and why those signals are generated .
Related Exhibits: • Lightn ing Bugs (Fireflies) • Speech Delay
Materials: Pencil, paper, and a good imag inat ion .
To do: 1 . I n g roups of two or three , decide what kinds of signals a flower would send. You r list should
have at ieast three specific signals. Why would a Hower send ihese signals? 'vVhu ur wiJat is the intended receiver of these sig na ls?
2. W hile stil l In groups, consider the s ignals 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 spec ific Signals that each animal would send. For example, a dog might wag its tai l , scratch a door, rol l 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 o r not the Signal is consciously sent.
3. Make a trip to you r school l ibrary or local l ibrary. For each animal , determine whether or not you r predictions and explanat ions occur in real l ife.
Questions to consider: (A) How do these signals d iffer f rom the signals that people send to each other? How are they
the same?
(B) At the l ibrary, did you find any particular signals that you hadn't considered? Why do you think they didn't occur to you at first?
3 9 1
Amazi n g Phase Objective: 1 . To demonstrate the effect of phase, in terms of two sl inky pu lses
being either, in-phase or out-of-phase resu lting in constructive and destructive interference.
Related Exhib its : * The Sl inky. .* 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 1 8ft long by 5ft wide. 2. Lay the s linky flat on the floor and extend the sl inky spring out along the length of the cleared
area. Assign a person to each end of the sl inky (Pulse Makers) and extend it out until it just becomes tight (approximately 1 5 feet is ideal, but this depends on the type of sl inky) .
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 g iving it a smal l quick fl ick to one side and then holding your hand steady. This pu lse must be just small enough to miss tin cans #1 and #3. Pulse maker #1 must f l ick to their right, while pulse maker #2 must f l ick to their left to produce in-phase pulses.
5. Practice several t ime unti l you can fulfi l l the Part (A) aim.
Diagram (A) - In-Phase Slinky Pu lses
1 0 .,. Pu l se � I M a k e r # l � *
1 5 fe e t
3 1' 0 1 � Pu l se
� M a k e r # 2
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 pu lses which meet in the middle of the slinky.
1 . As in a s imilar arrangement to Part (A), place four aluminium cans in the positions indicated in diagram (8) below.
2. On the count of three, Pu lse Makers #1 and #2 make a pulse by holding the end of the spring in one hand and g iving it a small quick fl ick to one side and then holding you r hand steady. This pulse must be large enough to knock out tin cans #1 and #4. 80th Pu lse maker's m ust fl ick to their right. or both to their left to produce out-of-phase pulses.
3. Practice several time until you can fulf i l l the Part (8) aim.
Diagram (B) - Out-af-Phase Slinky Pulses 2 4
Pu l se 0 '" 0 -1- � P u l se M a k e r # 1 ....... _ ____ �-------��t---------l-.r- - � M a k e r # 2 � o t 6 I n c h e s 0
1 3
What's Going On: W hen pulses pass through one each other, they interfere with one another. I f the pulses interfere with 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, Phase 3 - Part One, Facilitator Instructions
Student Theories of Row the Electricity and Magnetism Exhibits Work
Duration : 1 hour Grouv Size : 2 students �
Aim :
a) T o 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 from the Electricity and Magnetism gallery of the Science Center : Electric Motor, Generating Electricity, Electricity from a Magnet,
Rand battery, Curie Point, and Making a Magnet .
2 . Instruct students to select two exhibits which they found the most interesting - One
from Set A and one from Set B
Set A {Electric Motor, Generating Electricity, Electricity from a Magnet}
Set B {Hand battery, Curie Point, Making a Magnet}
3. Instruct students to provide written answers to the following : a) Make a list of the different parts of each exhibit selected .
b ) What did you d o 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 following :
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 facilitated
discussion.
6. Instruct students to write a "why the exhibits do what they do" (theory of operation)
for each of the two exhibits .
7. Allow students to share their answers with the rest of the class in a teacher facilitated discussion.
393
Appendix F
Post=visit Activities for Stage 3, Phase 3 c Part One, Student Hand-out
Circle the exhibit you found most interesting from
this list (Set A):
Electric Motor, Generating Electricity,
Electricity from a Magnet.
Make a list of the different parts of the exhibit
selected.
What did you do at this exhibit? Who were you
with at this exhibit?
What did each exhibit do when you interacted
with it?
Circle the exhibit you found most interesting from
this list (Set B):
Hand battery, Curie Point, Making a Magnet.
Make a list of the different parts of the exhibit
selected.
What did you do at this exhibit? Who were you with at this exhibit?
What did each exhibit do when you interacted
with it?
394
What to you think the exhibit was "trying" to
demonstrate or communicate to you?
What to you think the exhibit was "trying" to
demonstrate or communicate to you?
What are the differences 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:Exhibit: ________________________________ _
SetB:Exhibit: ----------------------------------
Name: ______________ _
395
poste visit Activities for Stage 3, Phase 3 - Part Two, Student Hand-out
Post-Visit Activity - Part Two NAME:. __________________ ____________ ___
Application of Theory to Hands on Activity
A im: 1 . To generate electricity using a magnet.
2. To make a magnet from electricity.
Equipment: • One piece of iron rod. • One wound copper wire core.
• One bar magnet.
• One Micro Ammeter. • One 1 2 V Power Supply
Part (AJ - Making Electricity from a Magnet:
To Do:
-.) 2. Move the bar magnet back and forth 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 fast.
Observations: Write a sentence to describe exactly what you observed.
What'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.
What '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 Portrayed in 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
through the wire, causing it to heat up and eventually glow
red hot . At this point , 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 will change 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 from Electricity : Solenoid in a fixed position
is surrounded by many small magnetic compasses. DC
current through the solenoid can be turned on and off.
When the solenoid is on, all the compass needles move
and align themselves in a fixed pattern.
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 1 0 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 crank handle
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 field causes the electrons to be
deflected and strike other coloured phosphor, thus causing
the various colours when the magnet is brought close to the
screen.
400
Appendix H Structure of Database for Concept Profile Inventory, Related Learning Experience Inventory, and Researcher Generated Concept Maps
Student Name:
Phase
Pre-visit
Post-visit
Post-activity
Concept Profile Inventory (CPI)
<
Fundamental Category
1 .0 Properties of Magnets
2.0 Earth's Magnetic Field I COqllSse5 ,
Applicatioo
3_0 Properties of Electricity
4.0 Types of Electricity , Electricity
Productioo ' Applicatioo
1 .0 Properties of Magnets
2.0 Earth's Magnetic Field ' Co�asses ,
Applicatioo
3.0 Properties of Electricity
4.0 Types of Electricity , E1ectricity
Productioo , Applicatioo
1 .0 Properties of Magnets
20 Earth's Magnetic Field I COqIISse5 , Appicatioo
3.0 Properties of Electricity
4.0 Types of E1ectricity ' Electricity Productioo ,
Applicatioo
>
Student Concepts (examples included)
1 . 1 Magnets Attract 1 .2 Magnets Repel 1 .0 ....•..•...•.•...••
21 Co� point North
22 Earth has a magnetic field
2.0 •.••.......•....•.•
3.1 E1ectricity make. things work
3.2 Electricity flows tbrough wires
3.0 .................. .
4.1 Ughtning is a form of electricity
4.2 Static electricity is a fonn of e1ectricity
4.0 ..•.•.•.•.....•..•.•••••
1 . 1 Magnets can ruin TV's
1 .2 Heat repels magnets 1 .0 ..........•..•..•.•
21 Magnets can affect the directioo COqIISses point
2.2 . COqIISS point toward magnets
2.0 .•......•••....••••
3.1 Electricity creates magnetism
3.2 Electricity is moving electrons
3.0 .................. .
4.1 Generators generate electricity
4.2 Static electricity is produced wheo you
comb your hair 1 . 1 Magnetism can
create electricity 1 .2 EIectro magnets
cease to be magnets wheo the electricity is switched off
1 .0 ...........•.•.....
2.1 Magnets cause electric motors to spin
2.2 Electric motors use magnets to make them work
2.0 ............•......
3.1 Electricity can produce magnetism
3.2 E1ectricity flowing through a coil of wire will produce beat
3.0 ... . . ............. .
4. 1 Electricity is produced by waving a magnet
over a coil of wire 4.2 Ammeterslmeters
measure electricity 4.0 .................. .
40 1
Related Learning Experience
(RLE) <----:>
Student Experiences
1 .0 ........................ .
2.0 ........................ .
0.0 ....................... .
1 .0 •.•••...•••••••..•.......
20 ........................ .
0.0 ........•...••..........
1 .0 ........................ .
2.0 .••.•.•.••••....•.••.....
0.0 .........•..............
Researcher Generated Concept
Map (RGCM)
<---->
Representation of Student Knowledge