Optimal Model Order for a Moon Phases Lab With Virtual and Physical Components

• In Event: 63.031 - Connecting Virtual Tools and Physical Activities to Enhance Science Learning

Abstract

Objective
We designed a middle school lab experience to help students understand the cause of the Moon’s phases, using a combination of physical models (styrofoam balls and lamps) and computer models (WorldWide Telescope, WWT). We tested how model order (Foam then WWT, vs. WWT then Foam) would impact student learning.

Theoretical framework
Studies show that a blend of virtual and physical models may be more advantageous than one or the other alone (e.g. Liu, 2006). Little research has been done on optimal sequencing of virtual/physical models in classrooms, but Carmichael et al. (2010) found evidence that students may benefit from using a physical model prior to the virtual model.

Methods & Data
We use quasi-experimental methods to compare different sequencings. Half of students used the foam model first, then WWT. The other half used WWT first, then the foam model. We created identical pre/posttests that include multiple choice (MC) content questions about the Moon’s phases, and open response questions that probe understanding. The former were selected from the Astronomy and Space Science Concept Inventory (ASSCI, Sadler, 2009), a compilation of distractor-driven multiple choice questions. Open-response questions embedded throughout the activities were scored using a Knowledge Integration (KI, Linn, 2000) rubric.

Results
Pre-post Gain on the MC assessment is comparable regardless of model order, with a regression analysis showing a slight but statistically significant benefit to using WWT first. (The factor that best predicts gain is pre-test score, since students with lower pre-test scores have more room to grow.)


For 2 cohorts where we have coded Knowledge Integration responses (A13, A14), most students (>80%) began the Moon Lab with a KI score ≤ 1, showing that misconceptions are common. At the posttest, 18% of students who used WWT first have low KI scores, compared with 40% of students who used the Foam first.


Significance
Our partner teachers suggested a learning progression where students make observations of the moon over a lunar cycle; recreate a lunar cycle using the styrofoam ball model; then deepen understanding by manipulating the computer model - i.e., they expressed a strong preference for using the foam model first. 81% of students also preferred or wished they had the styrofoam model first, or had no preference about model order. Yet both our MC and KI data indicate that students who had the less preferred order (WWT, then foam) had stronger learning gains and ended the experience with fewer misconceptions. As this result contradicts existing research (Carmichael et al., 2010), this topic warrants further study.

Authors

• Patricia Udomprasert, Harvard University

• Alyssa Goodman, Harvard University

• Philip M. Sadler, Harvard University

• E Johnson, Harvard University

• Erin Lotridge

• Jon Jackson

• Ana-Maria Constantin

• Z.H. Zhang

• S Sunbury

• Qin Wang, College of Physical Science & Technology

• M Dussault

• Laura Trouille, Northwestern University