Workshop Guide

Introduction

Perhaps our most powerful tool in capturing our students’ imaginations is the planetarium. For at least a small part of their school day, our students can journey to the countryside and pick out familiar constellations against an inky black sky, or travel to Mars or a planet circling a red sun.

But the very power of the planetarium to whisk students through space and time poses a dilemma: How do we balance education with entertainment? Debate about where the balance point should be has been going on since the first planetarium program. Some school shows have been criticized as being too dull (all education) while others have been accused of flashy programs with no substance (light shows that are all entertainment).

This workshop has been developed by the authors and their many collaborators as a tool for enhancing planetarium education and entertainment for any audience and any occasion. Over the past several years we have found strategies for making science content more entertaining and simultaneously more meaningful. These strategies include techniques for selecting and arranging content and for actively involving the students in the planetarium program.

The Planetarium Educator’s Workshop Guide is intended to be used by any group of educators who want to get together to experiment with new techniques for presenting astronomy and space science to students. This group of educators may be the staff of a school district that has a permanent or portable planetarium, or attendees at a teachers’ conference or science institute. While an individual teacher may find the Guide useful, it is designed to be most effective (and most enjoyable) for a group of people who are willing to spend a few hours sharing ideas and challenging each other’s assumptions. Tips for presenting a workshop are in “Devising an Action Plan”.

The goals of the workshop program are to enable you to:

• • Select realistic goals and effective teaching techniques for particular groups of students.

  • Involve your students in active investigations during planetarium programs, including public shows.

  • Assess programs to find out which elements are working best in helping students learn from their planetarium visit.

  • Help other teachers present classroom activities that complement and extend students’ experiences in the planetarium.

While the authors of this workshop guide are enthusiastic about active (“participatory”) learning in the planetarium, our purpose is not to prescribe any one technique for developing planetarium programs, nor to criticize poor techniques. Rather, the workshop modules present a variety of perspectives for viewing what occurs in a planetarium, and a number of specific, useful strategies for creating programs.

We welcome your comments on these guides and your suggestions for improvements.

Insights:

Insights:

Insights:

This activity has proven to be a remarkably efficient (and fun) way to bring out most of the strategies good communicators use to get information across. For example, you’ll probably notice that analogies are a frequent tool. Rather than trying to describe every detail of the drawing below, an instructor will often say “It’s shaped like a wave.” This strategy works well as long as the analogy is sufficiently close, and the learner has the same picture of “a wave” that the instructor has. That second condition is usually assumed by the instructor, but may be inappropriate. Students may imagine “a wave” to be quite different from what the instructor meant.

Interaction between the student and instructor like that allowed in Rounds #2 and #3 is essential to check such assumptions and may suggest the use of other analogies, or an entirely different strategy for communicating ideas.

This exercise itself is analogous to the problem of communicating an idea in your mind to your student’s mind. Our exercise limits the idea to a simple line drawing which could be communicated in a planetarium by just showing a slide. But even pictures can be interpreted differently by instructors and students (see Module 4). Communicating more subtle scientific concepts, such as moon phases, the reason for day and night, gravity, or the nature of a black hole, requires the instructor to continuously check his or her assumptions about how the students are receiving the message.

The insights you can gain from doing this activity introduce the remainder of this workbook. In the modules that follow, we examine specific techniques planetarium educators can use to create accurate, enjoyable programs that allow you to communicate effectively with students.

Incorporating more interaction with students will be a constant theme. Every technique we discuss will have advantages and disadvantages, and we have no “surefire” guarantees to offer. Techniques that incorporate more student-instructor interaction are more effective communication tools than techniques that do not, but interaction does take time. The quality and quantity of communication must be balanced. We hope you will weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each technique presented in this workbook.

Learning often takes place best when students have opportunities to express ideas and get feedback from their peers. But for feedback to be most helpful to learners, it must consist of more than the provision of correct answers. Feedback ought to be analytical, to be suggestive, and to come at a time when students are interested in it. And then there must be time for students to reflect on the feedback they receive, to make adjustments and to try again.

—Science for All Americans, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989, page 146.

Module 3:

Organizational Patterns

This section outlines a number of ways you can interact with your students in the planetarium. As you read about each pattern of organization, turn back to the table below and list the advantages and disadvantages you see in each.

Each organizational scheme will be illustrated by using a section of an actual single-visit planetarium program.

• 1. Nussbaum, J., and Novak, J., “Children’s Conceptions of the Earth as a Cosmic Body: a Cross-Age Study,” Science Education, vol. 63, no. 1, 83-93, 1979.

  2. Sneider, C. and Pulos, S., “Children’s Cosmographies: Understanding the Earth’s Shape and Gravity,” Science Education, vol. 67, no. 2, 205-221, 1983.

  3. Sneider, C., Pulos, S., Freenor, E., Porter, J., and Templeton, B., “Understanding the Earth’s Shape and Gravity,” Learning 86, vol. 14, no. 6, February, 1986.

  4. Lightman, Alan and Sadler, Philip, “How could the Earth be Round?,” Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, submitted to Science & Children, October, 1987.

  5. Sneider et. al., Learning 86, op. cit., p. 17.

  6. Vosniadou, Stella, and Brewer, William F., “Theories of Knowledge Restructuring in Development,” Review of Educational Research, Spring 1987, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 51-67.

  7. Vosniadou, Stella, “Knowledge Acquisition and Conceptual Change,” Applied Psychology: An International Review, 1992, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 347-357.

  8. Vosniadou, Stella, and Brewer, William F., “Mental Models of the Earth: A Study of Conceptual Change in Childhood,” Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 535-585.

  9. Vosniadou, Stella, “Universal and Culture-Specific Properties of Children’s Mental Models of the Earth,” in Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture, Edited by Hirschfeld and Gelman, Cambridge University Press, in press.

  10. Vosniadou, Stella, and Brewer, William F., “Mental Models of the Day/Night Cycle,” Cognitive Science, in press.

  11. Vosniadou, Stella, and Brewer, William F., “Constraints on Knowledge Acquisition: Evidence from Children’s Models of the Earth and the Day/Night Cycle,” unpublished manuscript.

The Astronomer’s Answers

Following are answers to the questionnaire that might be given by an astronomer. Also included are suggestions for leading a discussion. Whether the discussion is among teachers or students, it is best to wait until they have discussed all of the questions before providing them with “the astronomer’s answers.”

Question 1: The astronomer’s answer would be “D.” The Earth is round like a ball, but looks flat because we only see a small part of the ball.” You can expect some variation in elementary students’ ideas on this question since it requires a correct understanding of the part-to-whole relationship between the “flat ground” of our everyday experience, and the “ball-shaped Earth” that we learn about in school. This reasoning skill typically develops during the early elementary years, but understanding such a relationship is much easier if illustrated with a physical object, such as a large weather balloon.

Question 2: The astronomer’s answer would be: “D.” Downward.” When first confronted with this question, most people try to imagine which direction they would fly in a plane to get to China or India, and will answer “eastward” or “westward.” Ask your students to imagine that the Earth is made of glass and that they can look straight through it. You might also use a globe and ruler to show what happens if you look due east or west: the ruler (representing the way you would look) points off into space.

Question 3: To help the students discuss their answers to this question, draw three or four large circles on the board, each with figures holding rocks as shown on the questionnaire. Invite students to come up to the board to draw their answers. The pictures of three or four alternative views will help you focus the discussion on which answer is best.

The astronomer’s answer would show each rock falling straight down, towards the center of the Earth, landing next to the person’s feet. It is common for students to show the rocks falling off the Earth, to an absolute down direction in space, or to compromise the two views by showing the rocks falling at an angle. Some students show the rocks falling all the way to the center of the earth, which would be true if the Earth were made of Jello!

At some point in the discussion, you may need to explain why “down” is always toward the center of the Earth. Ask your students to think about the people who live all around the ball-shaped Earth. The only way to explain why these people do not fall off is to imagine that “down” is toward the center of the Earth. To demonstrate this idea, turn an Earth globe so that the South Pole is “up” and ask the students to imagine being there. People on the South Pole must think that people in the Northern Hemisphere live upside-down!

Question 4: This one stumps many adults! Again, it is helpful to draw several circles on the board, showing the figure and tunnel. Invite students to come up and draw their answers until several different ideas are represented. Then lead a discussion about them. Take a final vote on each of the ideas represented on the board, before presenting the astronomer’s viewpoint.

The best way to explain how an astronomer would answer it is to explain the history of the concept of gravity. When the ancient Greeks came up with the idea of a ball-shaped Earth, they had to explain why people who lived on the other side of the world didn’t fall off. Aristotle, who lived about 2,300 years ago, thought that everything went to its “natural resting place” in the center of the universe, which he believed to be at the center of the Earth. If Aristotle had filled out the questionnaire, he would have drawn a line to the center and stopped there.

That idea was revised “only” about 300 years ago by Isaac Newton, who believed that the rock falls because of a pulling force which acts between all particles in the universe. Every particle within the Earth pulls on every particle within the rock. He named that force gravity. From the rock’s point of view, “down” is always toward the greater mass of the Earth. Before it reaches the center, the rock keeps going faster and faster because it is still falling “down.” It only starts slowing after it passes the center, because then the greater mass of the Earth is behind it. If Isaac Newton were to fill out the questionnaire, he would draw the rock falling back and forth between the two poles of the Earth until air resistance finally slowed it down. Eventually, it would settle in the exact center of the Earth, suspended in the middle of the tunnel.

B. Frames of Reference

As discussed in the introduction to this module, some researchers have emphasized the development of students’ ideas or theories. The authors of the Planetarium Educator’s Workshop Guide agree that this point of view is very useful in designing good programs for students because it helps us to remember that students always come to our programs with their own ideas about the universe. A very important part of our jobs is understanding what our students already believe, so we can help them construct new, scientific theories about the earth, planets, stars, and galaxies, and the other topics of our planetarium programs.

We also believe that the other factor—reasoning abilities that develop as a child matures—are equally important. For example, in order to understand that the earth looks flat because it is just a small part of a very large sphere, the students need to be able to change their frame of reference, from the viewpoint of a person on the surface, to the viewpoint of an astronaut, looking at the earth from space. Development of this skill takes time. The i unit is written for 5th-8th graders because we can be reasonably certain that students in this age range have developed this reasoning skill.

In the remainder of Module 4 we’ll consider several reasoning abilities that are critical for students to develop in order to understand many important topics in astronomy. We’ll begin with a reasoning ability to consider a situation from multiple frames of reference.

We often project pictures of models and diagrams onto the dome: the earth as seen from space, the earth, sun, and moon as seen from above the plane of the ecliptic, and so on. To learn some of the ways students may interpret such diagrams, begin by solving the problem that follows.

Are these pictures all of the moon? If yes, then explain why the moon has different shapes at different times.

Now consider the following responses to the same question by some school children. How do their notions of a “scientific explanation” differ from your own?

Joe, 8 years old.

Interviewer: How can you explain these different shapes, Joe?

Joe: It divides itself in different shapes....

Interviewer: Does it ever put itself back together again?

Joe: In the daytime. In the nighttime it divides itself again.

Interviewer: Why is it that you can only see this part (pointing to crescent) or that part (pointing to half disk) at a time?

Joe: Cause it’s been divided up.

Tina, 10 years old.

Tina: Something like its our planet or another planet covering half of it or the sun or something covering parts of it... Yeah, our planet.

Interviewer: How does our planet get up there in the sky?

Tina: Well, like I’m looking at it cause the shadow of the earth is on that part of it.

Interviewer: In this picture (pointing to half disk) where do you think the shadow of the earth is?

Tina: There is no moon like that.

Interviewer: You’ve never seen a moon like this?

Tina: There’s no such thing as that kind. It can only be curved, because the planet’s round and the moon’s round so the planet can’t be straight on one side to do that.

Herbert, 13 years old.

Herbert: Because at different days, like a quarter moon, full moon, half moon, just changes its position.

Interviewer: How does changing its position change its shape?

Herbert: Cause, all right, if it spins around a kind of fog or mist can get on this part, and it will sort of look like a quarter moon....

Interviewer: How does one side get light and the other side get dark?

Herbert: Maybe cause reflections can’t see the dark side, the sun, but reflections can see the light side.

Interviewer: On here (pointing to the full moon) where is the dark side?

Herbert: In back.

Interviewer: In this picture (pointing to crescent) where do you think the sun is?

Herbert: Over in this direction. Like the sun is right here and it’s showing that part (indicating correct position of sun).

Derek, 9 years old.

Derek: Because every month the moon, the clouds come over half of it. And then when the moon is full there’s no clouds around it. In a year then it goes back to normal.

Interviewer: Do the clouds stay that way all night? Or do they move around so you see it all different ways in one month?

Derek: No, it stays that way for a month.

The students’ responses are typical of a large number of interviews recorded at the Lawrence Hall of Science. They are also quite similar to the views expressed by children in the same age groups that were reported by Piaget fifty years ago. Since many of those interviewed in our study reported learning about the moon in school and at museums and planetariums, and could list dozens of facts about space explorations, their failures to provide adequate explanations for the phases of the moon cannot be attributed to lack of exposure to the correct concepts.

Joe’s explanation illustrates a mode of reasoning common to the egocentric level child. Egocentric explanations attribute motives and purposes to inanimate objects or assume all phenomena are produced by human actions for human purposes. Because the child has intention and purpose, he assumes everything else has these attributes as well. This mode of thinking is called “animism.”

Tina begins with the idea that something is covering up the moon and quickly proceeds to an explanation which involves the Earth’s shadow. It is possible that she recalls learning about lunar eclipses and is confusing that explanation for phases of the moon. When Tina realizes that her explanation doesn’t fit the straight shadow on one of the moon pictures, she rejects the picture as a fabrication! Thus, her prior understanding of moon phases affects her ability to observe as well as explain what she sees.

Herbert seems to have the right idea from the very beginning when he claims that the moon “just changes its position.” However, when asked to explain his ideas more fully he at first slips back to an explanation like that given by Derek, in which fog or mist covers the moon to cause the phases. Then he switches back to the more advanced explanation involving reflected light coming from the sun. Furthermore, Herbert demonstrates that he can visualize the relationships by correctly explaining where the sun must be in order to produce the lunar phase that we see. These more complex relationships are concrete level explanations.

Derek’s explanation is more advanced than Joe’s since it involves only natural phenomena. However, like Joe, he accepts a simple association as an adequate explanation. Since many children have noticed clouds covering things like the sun and moon, it is not surprising that this explanation is common among children of this age. Like Joe, Derek extends this idea to invent an explanation, but has little concern for the need to reconcile new observations. What is important for Joe and Derek is that their explanations make sense from their own points of view, indicative of egocentric reasoning.

In summary, students’ abilities to observe and explain what they see depends on their level of development and on their prior understanding of the phenomenon.

Please examine the following cartoons and determine at what level the explainer is operating.

Students of various ages were given six pictures of galaxies and asked to classify them any way they wished. Next to each response, please indicate the reasoning level that the student is using in order to give that response.

What is the level of thinking? Please explain your answer.

What is the level of thinking? Please explain your answer.

What is the level of thinking? Please explain your answer.

What is the level of thinking? Please explain your answer.

E. Teaching Approaches

In this module we have considered the role of students’ knowledge and reasoning skills in learning. Following are some suggestions for teaching approaches that take these factors into account.

Recognizing that students come to our classrooms and planetariums filled with a great many observations and ideas about the natural world implies that we should encourage our students to discuss their ideas about a subject before we attempt to teach it. This will help us better understand the misconceptions that need to be overcome, select more appropriate educational objectives, and allow us to exploit the students’ diverse ideas to help them construct new, more adequate concepts.

One way to initiate a productive discussion is to illustrate a concrete situation and ask a question about it. Examples from this module include questions about the appearance of moons from the surface of Mars, about the path of a rock dropped through a hole in the earth, and why the moon appears to be different shapes at different times.

As you facilitate your students’ discussions, help them to identify a few alternative viewpoints. Encourage discussion about which point of view best explains the observations, or is consistent with other information that they believe to be true.

Such discussions need not take a long time, nor do they need to result in agreement on the scientists’ viewpoint. It is most important that you become aware of your students’ current understanding, and for the students to begin to question their own points of view.

Moving the students from their own viewpoints to more powerful concepts is not easy, and it is unrealistic to expect them to give up explanations which satisfy them without a struggle. As you become more aware of common misconceptions, you can plan activities in which the students make observations which conflict with these misconceptions, so that they become open to new ways of thinking. Several activities which are designed to do this are included in Activities for the School Planetarium of the PASS Series.

Let’s take a minute to consider one activity designed to challenge the idea that moon phases are caused by the earth’s shadow. Darken a room as completely as possible and turn on a single light bulb in the middle to represent the “sun.” Give each student a ball to hold which represents the “moon.” Their heads are the “earth.” As the students move the moon ball around their heads, they see the moon go through its various phases. They also see a lunar eclipse as the full moon passes into the earth’s shadow, thus allowing them to disentangle these two concepts. (This activity is fully described in Moons of the Solar System of the PASS Series.)

The moon phases activity also illustrates the interplay between knowledge and reasoning skills, since it works much better if each student has a moon ball than if the teacher demonstrates the activity to the class. When each student has his own “moon” to look at, he can see it go through its phases from his own point of view. Whereas if the teacher demonstrates the concept, the students must imagine the view through the teacher’s eyes, which is a difficult challenge for most children, and even for many adults who are unfamiliar with the subject matter.

Another approach to helping students change their current concepts is to contrast a difficult problem (referred to as the “target problem”), with a simpler problem of the same type (referred to as the “anchor”). In the Martian Moon Problem, for example, most people select the right phase for Deimos, but have a difficult time selecting the right phase for Phobos. Asking the students to consider how these two problems are similar or different may help them solve the “target” problem of Phobos, by thinking about how they solved the “anchor” problem of Deimos.¹⁰

Persistent student misconceptions can be disheartening, since it makes the teacher’s job seem so difficult. Teaching is a challenging profession, but it does not have to be disheartening if we adopt realistic expectations. One of the most useful lessons that we can learn from educational researchers who study common misconceptions is that people change their concepts gradually. Thus, it is more realistic to expect our students’ ideas to be a little closer to the scientist’s viewpoint after a lesson than to expect them to understand a new concept completely.

Additionally, it is more realistic to expect conceptual change after several activities that address the same concept. Classroom activities which complement planetarium programs by presenting the same concept in a different way are therefore likely to be an effective approach to conceptual change.

Piaget refers to the process by which a person’s reasoning skills advance to higher levels as “self-regulation.” According to his theory, self-regulation begins when an individual first uses his present reasoning to attempt to solve a problem. When the person’s reasoning skills clearly fail to produce a satisfactory result, the individual has the opportunity to modify his or her reasoning.

Piaget refers to the process by which a person’s reasoning skills advance to higher levels as “self-regulation.” According to his theory, self-regulation begins when an individual first uses his present reasoning to attempt to solve a problem. When the person’s reasoning skills clearly fail to produce a satisfactory result, the individual has the opportunity to modify his or her reasoning.

An important aspect of this process is that teachers cannot simply “teach” reasoning skills. Students must construct them on their own, just as they must construct concepts by modifying or replacing their current ideas with new ones. Thus, telling students how to solve problems is not as helpful in developing new reasoning skills as giving them hints once they begin to seek new reasoning patterns on their own.

One useful approach in helping students develop more adequate reasoning skills is to give them problems at the appropriate level. Start with something familiar and interesting to the students, so they are willing to get involved. Then, introduce a more difficult problem for which their present reasoning strategy doesn’t work, so they will be especially susceptible to helpful suggestions from you or other students.

For example, students who can solve the Deimos problem in The Martian Moon Problem, will be interested in trying to solve the Phobos problem, even if they find it difficult. Listening to other students explain how they try to “imagine the view from Mars,” or “reverse what I saw” may help those who do not yet have these reasoning skills to develop them.

If, on the other hand, the level of difficulty is too great, frustration may occur, and the students may avoid the situation in the future. When the level of difficulty is just right, the students will be able to construct for themselves new reasoning strategies that they will continue to use in the future.

To apply this theory to planetarium programming, you may wish to keep in mind the following general points:

• 1. Many of your students will approach astronomy problems with concrete or egocentric reasoning. They will not become involved in the program unless they can start at their own level.

  2. Some topics can be understood using concrete or egocentric approaches, while others require formal reasoning in order to be understood. Consequently, by carefully selecting topics you can design programs which begin at the level of your students.

  3. If students can become involved in a topic at a level which is comfortable for them, and then are challenged by slightly more complex or unexpected information, they may experience intellectual growth. In other words, experiences like these not only help the students understand particular concepts in astronomy, but may also improve their abilities in such general areas as using different frames of reference, classifying objects and events, and formulating explanations.

For easy reference when planning planetarium programs, there is a summary of the Piagetian levels of reasoning for the three ability areas discussed in this module. You should now be able to use this list to “rate” any presentation as requiring egocentric, concrete, or formal level reasoning. This approach can help you develop or revise programs to be more appropriate for your students.

New concepts and new reasoning skills are only useful to the degree that students use them in school, in daily life, and in their future careers. You can help students apply what they learn by providing as many real contexts as possible in their learning activities. Presentations on space science can include the very latest news about American, Soviet, or European space probes. Show slides of the women and men who carry out programs in science and technology around the world. In programs about the moon, planets, and constellations, give your students ideas about how they can apply what they learned by looking in the real night sky that very night.

The problem below provides an opportunity to integrate all of the information provided in this module.

10. Schultz, K., Murray, T., Clement, J., and Brown, D., “Overcoming Misconceptions with a Computer-Based Tutor,” in Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Misconceptions in Math and Science (J. Novak, Ed.), Cornell University, 1987.

FIFTH GRADE

“Good evening. As our planetarium sky darkens, can anyone recognize the Big Dipper?” (1)

“Oh, I see it.” “Yeah, I see it too.”

“Okay, will you please take this light pointer and show the rest of us where the Big Dipper is?” (2)

“Thank you. Well, that’s the Big Dipper. Just about all of the stars that we can see in the sky belong to groups like the Big Dipper and people have been naming the constellations for just about as long as there have been people.

Why do you think people do that?” (3)

“Worship.”

“Okay, worship—that’s a good possibility. What’s another?” (4)

“To go places.”

“How would knowing the constellations help you to go places?” (5)

“You’d like to know which way to go from the stars. Directions.”

“Yes, knowing the constellations does help you find your way.

Does anyone know how to use the Big Dipper to find which way is north?” (6)

“I do, I think.”

“Okay, will you show us please?” (7)

“It’s this bright one at the end of the handle of the big dipper, the North Star.”

“You’ve got the right idea, but the wrong star. These two stars at the end of the bowl point to the North Star, right here. Then, once you’ve found the North Star, look down at the horizon just below it. That direction is north.

Okay?” (8)

“We’ve discussed at least two reasons that ancient people might have named the constellations for worship, or religious reasons, and to find directions.

How do you feel when you locate something you’re familiar with, like the Big Dipper in the sky?” (9)

“Like I just saw a friend. Good.”

“I’ll tell you what. I will give each of you a star map and let you find the constellations right here in the planetarium.

Is there anyone who has not yet received a star map?” (10)

Module 7:

Creating A Planetarium Program

A. A Brief Review

Three ways of viewing components of planetarium programs have been presented in this workbook. These schemes are briefly outlined below. The classifications are not ironclad distinctions, but are useful in helping match topic, student, and instructor to one another, and in maintaining variety.

• 1. Didactic Organization—Communication is entirely one-way: from the instructor to the students.

• 1. Small Group Task Organization—This organization allows students to interact with other students while working on a common task.

  2. Individual Task Organization—Each student makes his own observation or solves a problem on his own.

  3. Informal Discussion Organization—This pattern of organization allows free, uninhibited discussion by the students among themselves.

  4. Group Meeting Organization—The group meeting is primarily problem-centered, with the instructor or a student acting as a facilitator.

  5. Socratic Organization—The planetarium instructor takes the role of questioner and responder.

  6. Egocentric—Students can imagine only their own point of view. Simple associations and human motives are attributed to inanimate objects, e.g., “The sun rises so we’ll feel warm.” Students can notice similarities and differences.

  7. Concrete—Students can imagine another viewpoint only after a concrete experience. More complex relationships between various elements familiar to the individual can now be used to explain phenomena. New observations can be appropriately used in revising explanations. Beginning with classification by a single trait, they can later recognize that objects may belong to more than one class and can arrange objects along a continuum.

  8. Formal—Students can imagine a situation from different points of view. Students can extend explanations to predict observations and objectively compare their own explanations with alternatives by controlling variables and making probability arguments. They can arrange objects in a hierarchy and then rearrange the objects in a new hierarchy.

  9. Direct Information—The student recalls information or recognizes information that is readily observable

Module 8:

Teaching Across the Curriculum

A. Connections Between the Sciences

The walls are coming down! Astronomers and space scientists realized decades ago that the life of a working scientist is rarely confined to a single field, or discipline of science. Sure, scientists specialize in solving certain kinds of problems, but in doing so they almost always employ the theories and techniques of many different sciences in helping them to achieve their objectives.

Educators at the highest levels are now recognizing the need to bring science education into line with science—by emphasizing the connections between the sciences instead of the differences. Efforts to reform the curriculum now focus on ways to break down the barriers and remove the study of science from the pigeonholes.

One of these reform efforts is entitled “Project 2061,” and is being conducted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Phase 1 of the project, which took three years to complete, involved panels of scientists from different fields who worked together to define the most important theories, concepts, and processes that should be taught in school. Chapter 4 of Project 2061’s first report, entitled Science For All Americans, outlines the key ideas that are of special concern to astronomy and space science teachers.

However, the report goes far beyond identifying the most important topics that should be included in a K-12 astronomy and space science curriculum. The authors summarize research on teaching and learning, and emphasize the importance of activity-based science lessons to communicate the nature of science to students. This conclusion is consistent with the participatory approach to planetarium programming that has been emphasized throughout this guide.

Science for All Americans also emphasizes the connections among the sciences. The connecting threads are identified in the report as themes “that pervade science, mathematics, and technology and appear over and over again, whether we are looking at an ancient civilization, the human body, or a comet. They are ideas that transcend disciplinary boundaries and prove fruitful in explanation, in theory, in observation, and in design.”

The report goes on to identify thematic ideas and how they apply to science under six headings: systems, models, stability, patterns of change, evolution, and scale. As an exercise in designing new planetarium activities which integrate various scientific fields through a thematic approach, discuss each of these headings with a partner, and jot down an idea for an activity which would illustrate that theme.

[Page references below are to Science For All Americans.]

Module 9:

Devising an Action Plan

Improving astronomy and space science education is a pretty big task. A good way to start is to decide what part of that task you would like to take on as your personal responsibility. Discuss each of the following questions with a colleague. Help each other to view the challenge as broadly as possible, and to select tasks that you each have a reasonable chance of accomplishing. Write down your answer after discussing each question. Use additional sheets of paper if necessary.

A few items on the agenda don’t appear in this guide. At the end of each day we had a “wrap-up” of the day’s activities. This was an opportunity for the workshop leaders to summarize the material covered, and to express their own views on its importance, and for participants to comment and share related activities that they have done.

On the afternoon of the first day, we discussed plans for “participant-designed activities.” This was a popular feature in which the participants worked together in small groups to present short student-participation activities that they use, or think they could use. The participant-designed activities were presented on the final day of the workshop. After live demonstrations in the planetarium, each of the activities was critically discussed in terms of the strategies presented in the workshop. The discussions proved to be a most effective way of reviewing and clarifying the techniques as they apply in actual practice.

The presentation of Red Planet Mars on the morning of the second day serves as an example to be analyzed by the techniques of the workshop. “Mars” is a practical example of an audience participation single-visit planetarium show illustrating many of the strategies presented in these modules.

Here are suggestions for presenting each module in this book. There are also answers to the questions in each. You and the participants in your workshop may disagree with the answers given here. Our goal is to stimulate thinking about the educationally effective techniques for presenting planetarium programs. A healthy amount of disagreement is welcome.

This is a delightful and even amazing activity. You will find that you and the other participants very quickly get into the spirit of the workshop. We have also found this activity makes an excellent social icebreaker.

For every three participants, you will need two crayons or felt tip markers, two manila file folders (to serve as “barriers”), and half a dozen sheets of blank paper. (We recycle used computer paper.) One participant has to play leader and post the master drawings. The masters should be prepared in advance. We usually use simple geometric patterns including some astronomical motifs like the ones shown in Module 1.

Several of the insights that can be gained from this activity are described in the module itself. The use of analogies almost always comes up. The need for instructor-student interaction to check on how your students are understanding and enjoying the program is another major topic.

One technique for communication that may arise is the use of an “advanced organizer.” That’s a short introduction to the overall message the instructor wishes to communicate to the student. If the advanced organizer is successfully done, it can make students feel more comfortable with what follows. If the advanced organizer is misinterpreted in any fashion, the rest of the lesson may be spent correcting the students’ misinterpretation of what is supposed to be happening.

We hope you will enjoy Module 1 as much as we do, and at its end, your workshop participants will have a list of fundamental issues about communication in the planetarium.

This is a very “talky” unit and may take less time than any other module. There are two main functions of Module 2 in the context of the workshop. First, the module introduces the framework of Topic-Student-Instructor. Looking at interactions between pairs or all three of these elements is the basic pattern of the following modules.

The second function is to let the participants in your workshop describe to each other their own work and goals. We found that the remainder of the workshop went more smoothly if participants knew of their colleagues’ interests. The only materials you need for Module 2 are a blackboard and chalk, or an overhead projector and marking pen for recording the participants’ ideas.

This module occasionally catches fire if participants find they have basic philosophical disagreements. At one workshop, participants were equally divided between those who felt that classical, visual astronomy was the only legitimate subject for a planetarium, and those who felt that recent developments in astronomy were most important even if they were not related to what the basic planetarium projector could show.

While we have no resolution to offer, we believe that the techniques in the workshop will help planetarium educators achieve their goals regardless of the particular subjects to be presented.

Many participants found this the most exciting module because it immediately gets down to practical demonstrations of planetarium education techniques.

One strategy for presenting this module entails the workshop leaders modeling each of the organization patterns in the appropriate example activity. This takes a lot of preparation since the workshop leaders need to prepare the planetarium to present fragments of several different programs. The fragments come from PASS Activities for the Planetarium, Activity #7, and from Constellations Tonight. Please examine the materials and preparation needed which are fully described in these other PASS programs. Reading lights are needed for some of the activities. In some cases, under-the-cove lighting was suitable. In other planetariums you may need to use extension cords and half a dozen clamp-on light sockets with red bulbs.

The table that opens Module 3 is to be filled out by the participants as they finish each section of the module. The advantages and disadvantages of each technique will depend greatly on the particular program in which the technique is used, but here are some overall guidelines.

In the Didactic Organization the instructor can select and order all of the ideas to be included in the program, and present them rapidly and efficiently. The principal disadvantage is that the instructor may not know whether any of that information is reaching the student.

The Small Group Task Organization is a good way to start audience participation. This technique has the advantage of providing group support for students who might be intimidated if asked to do the task alone. A disadvantage is that small groups really must be small—preferably three to six people each—so that no student is lost in the group. With huge audiences, this may mean that there are too many groups and that the instructor cannot give each group time to report its results. As with all activity organizations, there is always the difficulty of finding an activity that is sufficiently challenging and at the same time practical for everyone.

In the Individual Task Organization each student’s accomplishments can engender a sense of personal pride. Individual tasks work well with either small or large audiences. Hearing a student call out “I got it!” is a delightful confirmation of the benefits of this organization. A disadvantage of this technique is the possibility that some individuals may not succeed at their assigned task. This danger can be avoided by carefully selecting and testing each activity.

The Informal Discussion Organization gives students an opportunity to express their feelings and reduce the formality and rigid structure of the planetarium visit. Students also appreciate the opportunity to confirm their feelings about how a program or activity is going. This organization, however, gives you no guarantee of just what will happen, and indeed, whether the informal discussion is valuable or not may vary from group to group.

The Group Meeting Organization allows students to talk with each other in a controlled atmosphere with clear goals in mind. The group may amaze itself with its ability to find answers that no one member of the group could have determined alone. The group meeting does require some skill on the part of the facilitator. The group may take a long or a short time to reach its conclusions, so this organization may not be easy to fit into a rigid time schedule.

The Socratic Organization is like the didactic in that the instructor controls the progress and the rate of information presented. Unlike the didactic organization, however, the questions and students’ responses in the socratic scheme allow some student participation and give the instructor continuous feedback on how well the responding students are following the program. This technique does require great skill on the part of the instructor so that the organization does not become too authoritarian and intimidating.

An easier strategy for presenting this module is suggested by Jacqueline Hall. In this approach, the workshop participants model the Patterns of Organization. Participants work in small groups (6-7 per group). They are not required to read every strategy, and yet they have the opportunity to learn about and identify each of the strategies. This method takes about an hour and a half.

• 1. Divide into small groups with 6 or 7 people per group. Assign each person in the group a number from 1 to 6. There may be two members with the number 1 if the group has 7 people in it.

  2. Give all the #1 members “Didactic” strategy description; give the #2 members “Small Group Task;” give the #3 members “Individual Task;” give the #4 members “Informal Discussion;” give the #5 members “Group Meeting;” and give the #6 members “Socratic.” While they are in the whole group setting, have them read the strategies independently.

  3. Have six areas for participants with the same number can meet and informally discuss their strategies. Within these groups they will plan a method for presenting/teaching the assigned strategy to the whole group. Group members will also fill out the enlarged Organizational Patterns chart which will be posted at the front of the room. This step takes about 15-20 minutes.

  4. Have all the groups reassemble in the main meeting area. At this time, give everyone a copy of the Organizational Patterns chart. Each group models their method for presenting with the assigned strategy. Participants take notes on their charts. Problems, suggestions, and questions can be discussed in this group setting. As a nonthreatening form of evaluation, the questions in Module 3, A Review of Organizational Patterns, can be used as a “quick-quiz.” The authors’ answers for the examples of organization skills at the end of the module are: 1) Socratic, 2) Didactic, 3) Individual Task, 4) Small Group Task, 5) Group Meeting, and 6) Informal Discussion.

This is the most theoretical and perhaps the most fundamental module because it presents a serious philosophy about how people learn. The applications that have been found for these theories go far beyond the planetarium, and participants may find these ideas useful both inside and outside of a starry dome.

The required materials are those to set up the “Martian Dilemma Problem.” You will need three small spheres on stands. Styrofoam balls and cardboard or wooden mounts will do. You also need a small plastic or paper figure to stand on the Mars sphere and a bare light bulb to represent the sun.

Many of the questions asked in this module are answered in the text itself. Question 1 should be answered “egocentric” and “formal.” For Question 2, a student would have to imagine himself observing the objects in each picture from within the plane of the picture itself to understand the concept. That’s a formal level task, but it could be made concrete if a three-dimensional model of a spiral galaxy could be passed around the audience or if a continuously rotating projection could be shown so that the students actually see a single galaxy as their observation point moved in and out of the galactic plane. The figure clearly requires formal level reasoning because the sets of individual pictures can be understood only if the student realizes that they are presented from three different frames of reference.

In the first cartoon, the explainer in the center of the first frame is thinking egocentrically. In the second cartoon, the wizard on the right is displaying formal reasoning.

In Section D, Classification 1 is Formal, 2 is Concrete, 3 is Concrete, and 4 is Egocentric.

Many participants found the strategies described here to be as useful in classroom work as in the planetarium. Questions and answers are useful both as an alternative to didactic lectures and as a means of finding out what your students know. The main difficulty with this module is that the categories of questions are not ironclad, and it’s easy to get into arguments about how a particular question should be classified. However, the process of analyzing one’s own questioning strategy is extremely useful even if the category system is not precise. This is another “talking” module, and no physical materials are required. In Module 5, we would classify the questions in the sample transcript as: 1) D, 2) M, 3) O, 4) O, 5) D, 6) D, 7) M, 8) R, 9) F, 10) M.

Module 6, like Module 3, gets down to practical examples of activities in the planetarium. Three sample activities are discussed, all from The Red Planet Mars program given earlier. Please consult PASS program, Red Planet Mars, for a list of materials that you will need. You must determine whether the planetarium projector has a satisfactory Mars for the first activity. We expanded this module by inviting participants to work on a “small group task” to develop and present an activity to their colleagues. We limited each presentation to fifteen minutes, followed by fifteen minutes of open discussion about how the activity might be expanded, improved, and incorporated into an entire program. For many of the participants, the presentation and discussion of these activities was the highlight of the workshop.

We would classify the three sample activities from The Red Planet Mars as follows.