The impact of three‐dimensional computational modeling on student understanding of astronomy concepts: a qualitative analysis

Abstract

In this study, we explore an alternate mode for teaching and learning the dynamic, three-dimensional (3D) relationships that are central to understanding astronomical concepts. To this end, we implemented an innovative undergraduate course in which we used inexpensive computer modeling tools. As the second of a two-paper series, this report focuses on the qualitative differences of students' understandings of both spatial and declarative knowledge domains as reflected by their two distinct learning environments -a traditional astronomy classroom and an experimental astronomy course grounded in problem-solving and modeling with dynamic, 3D, computational modeling software. We found that students who constructed 3D computational models tended to have a more scientifically sophisticated understanding of dynamic spatial relationships, whereas students in the traditional class developed more accurate understandings of the properties and general facts and figures regarding celestial bodies.

Development of a Learning Progression for the Formation of the Solar System

“…Hansen, Barnett, MaKinster, and Keating (2004) compared a virtual reality-based course to a traditional astronomy course on US undergraduates' understanding of planet compositions. Students in the traditional course could provide a more complete explanation of the difference between rocky and gaseous planets' compositions.…”

In Quest of productive modeling‐based learning discourse in elementary school science

“…Finally, research in science education has highlighted the significant influence of modeling‐based learning on student learning across a number of different areas, namely, cognitive and metacognitive (e.g., Barab, Hay, Squire, Barnett, & Keating, 2001; Barnett, Barab, & Hay, 2001; Dede, Salzman, Loftin, & Sprague, 1999; Hansen, Barnett, MaKinster, & Keating, 2004; Prins et al, 2011; Sabelli, 1994; Sins et al, 2009; Stratford, Krajcik, & Soloway, 1998), social (e.g., Löhner, van Joolingen, Savelsbergh, & van Hout‐Wolters, 2004; Sins, Savelsbergh, & van Joolingen, 2005), and epistemological (e.g., Grosslight et al, 1991; Schwarz & White, 2005).…”

Conceptualizing astronomical scale: Virtual simulations on handheld tablet computers reverse misconceptions

“…Such studies demonstrate that students who used 3D computational models to construct scenarios testing their understanding were able to develop more sophisticated understandings of the dynamics and spatial geometry of the solar system. These students also became more adept at working with concepts that required changes in frames of reference or perspective, compared with those who pursued more traditional approaches to instruction (Hansen, Barnett, MaKinster, & Keating, 2004b;Yu & Sahami, 2008). Despite these encouraging findings, virtual representations can only be effective to the extent that they anticipate the learners' assumptions and interpretations, which necessitates suitable scaffolds to support their use (Gazit, Yair, & Chen, 2005).…”