Designing a digital teaching resource to explain phases of the moon: A case study of preservice elementary teachers making a slowmation

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 52, Issue 9, 2015, Pages 1207-1233

  Nielsen, Wendy ^a   Hoban, Garry ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG   (Australia)

Author keywords

animation; moon phases; multimodal representation; semiotics; slowmation; teaching resource; technology

Indexed keywords

ANIMATION; MOON; SEMIOTICS;

ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTION; CONSTRUCTION PROCESS; ELEMENTARY TEACHERS; MULTI-MODAL; PRE-SERVICE TEACHER; SLOWMATION; STOP-MOTION ANIMATIONS; TEACHING RESOURCES;

E-LEARNING;

EID: 84942830711     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21242     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Al-Balushi, S. M., (2013). The effect of different textual narratives on students' explanations at the sub-microscopic level in chemisty. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education, 9 (1), 3-10.
2. Atwood, R. K., &, Atwood, V. A., (1997). Effects of instruction on preservice elementary teachers' conceptions of the causes of night and day and the seasons. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8, 1-3.
3. Babai, R., Sekal, R., &, Stavy, R., (2010). Persistence of the intuitive conception of living things in adolescence. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 20-26.
4. Bell, R. L., &, Trundle, K. C., (2008). The use of computer simulation to promote scientific conceptions of moon phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 346-372.
5. Bryce, T. G. K., &, Blown, E. J., (2012). The novice-expert continuum in astronomy knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 34 (4), 545-587.
6. Callison, P. L., &, Wright, E. L., (1993)., &. The effect of teaching strategies using models on preservice elementary teachers' conceptions about earth-sun-moon relationships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Atlanta, GA.
7. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., &, Glasser, R., (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
8. Chi, M., De Leeuw, N., &, Chiu, M., (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
9. Cobb, P., (1994). Constructivism in mathematics and science education. Educational Researcher, 23 (7), 4-13.
10. Cobern, W., (1996). Worldview theory and conceptual change in science education. Science Education, 80, 579-610.
11. Davis, E. A., Petish, D., &, Smithey, J., (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76, 607-651.
12. Driver, R., (1983). The pupil as scientist?. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University.
13. Driver, R., &, Erickson, G., (1983). Theories-in-action: Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students' conceptual frameworks in science. Studies in Science Education, 10, 37-60.
14. Fanetti, T. M., (2001). The relationships of scale concepts on college age students' misconceptions about the cause of lunar phases. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
15. Fiorella, L., &, Mayer, R. E., (2014). Role of expectations and explanations in learning by teaching. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39 (2), 75-85.
16. Gilbert, J. K., (2007). Visualization in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.
17. Gilbert, J. K., &, Watts, D. M., (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10, 61-98.
18. Haim, E., (2010). Using photographs to probe students' understanding of physical concepts: The case of Newton's 3rd Law. Research in Science Education, 40 (4), 589-603.
19. Hand, B., &, Choi, A., (2010). Examining the impact of student use of multiple modal representations in constructing arguments in organic chemistry laboratory classes. Research in Science Education, 40, 29-44.
20. Hegarty, M., (2014). Spatial thinking in undergraduate science education. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 14 (2), 142-167.
21. Hewson, P., &, Hewson, M., (1984). The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13, 1-13.
22. Hiller, J. H., Deichman, J. W., &, Pirkle, J. K., (1975). Expectancy to teach: Possible incentive for learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 42 (1), 37-39.
23. Hoban, G., (2005). From claymation to slowmation: A teaching procedure to develop students' science understandings. Teaching Science: Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 51 (2), 26-30.
24. Hoban, G., (2007). Using slowmation to engage preservice elementary teachers in understanding science content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7 (2), 1-9.
25. Hoban, G., (2009). Facilitating learner-generated animations with slowmation. In, L. Lockyer, S. Bennett, S. Agostinho, &, B. Harper, (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning design and learning objects: Issues, applications, and technologies. (pp. 313-330). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
26. Hoban, G., &, Nielsen, W., (2010). The 5 R's: A new teaching approach to encourage student generated animations (Slowmations) of science concepts. Teaching Science: Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 56 (3), 33-38.
27. Hoban, G., Loughran, J., &, Nielsen, W. S., (2011). Slowmation: Engaging preservice elementary teachers with science knowledge through creating digital animations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (9), 985-1009.
28. Hoban, G., &, Nielsen, W., (2012). Learning science through designing and making a narrated stop-motion animation: A case study of preservice teachers conceptual change with slowmation. International Journal of Science Education, 35 (1), 119-146. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.670286.
29. Hoban, G., &, Nielsen, W., (2014). Creating a narrated stop-motion animation to explain science: The affordances of "slowmation" for generating discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 42, 68-78.
30. Hoban, G., Nielsen, W., &, Shepherd, A., (2013). Explaining and communicating science using student-created blended media. Teaching Science: Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 59 (1), 32-35.
31. Howes, E. V., (2002). Learning to teach Science for All in the elementary grades: What do preservice teachers bring?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 845-869.
32. Hubber, P., Tytler, R., &, Haslam, F., (2010). Teaching and learning about force with a representational focus: Pedagogy and teacher change. Research in Science Education, 40, 5-28.
33. Jewitt, K., (2014). Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. London: Routledge.
34. Johnson, P., &, Gott, R., (1996). Constructivism and evidence from children's ideas. Science Education, 80, 561-577.
35. Jonassen, D., Myers, J. M., &, McKillop, A. M., (1996). From constructivism to constructionism: Learning with hypermedia/multimedia rather than from it. In, B. G. Wilson, (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments. (pp. 93-106). Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
36. Kozma, R. B., (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 35, 205-226.
37. Kress, G., (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.
38. Lelliott, A., &, Rollnick, M., (2010). Big ideas: A review of astronomy education research 1974-2008. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (13), 1771-1799.
39. Lemke, J., (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific. In, J. R. Martin, &, R. Veel, (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. (pp. 87-113). New York, NY: Routledge.
40. Lombrozo, T., (2012). Explanation and abductive inference. In, K. J. Holyoak, &, G. R. Morrison, (Eds.), Handbook of thinking and reasoning. (pp. 260-276). Oxford, England: Oxford University.
41. Merriam, S., (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
42. Mintzees, J. L., Wandersee, J. H., &, Novak, J. D., (1998). Teaching for understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Academic.
43. Moseley, C., Desjean-Perrotta, B., &, Utley, J., (2010). The draw-an-environment test rubric (DAET-R): Exploring preservice teachers' mental models of the environment. Environmental Education Research, 16 (2), 189-208.
44. National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work. Washington, DC: National Academies.
45. Nestojko, J. F., Bui, D. C., Kornell, N., &, Bjork, E. L., (2014). Expecting to teach enhances learning and organization of knowledge in free recall of text passages. Memory & Cognition, 42, 1038-1048.
46. New South Wales Board of Studies. (1993). Science and technology K -6: Syllabus and support document. North Sydney, NSW NSW Board of Studies.
47. New South Wales Board of Studies. (2012). Science K-10 syllabus: Science and technology K-6. Sydney, NSW: State of New South Wales.
48. Ogan-Bekiroglou, F., (2007). Effects of model-based teaching on preservice teachers' conceptions of the moon, moon phases and other lunar phenomena. International Journal of Science Education, 29 (5), 555-593.
49. Peirce, C., (1931 /1955). Logic as semiotic: The theory of signs. In, B. Justus, (Ed.), Philosophical writings of Peirce (1893-1910). (pp. 98-119). New York, NY: Dover.
50. Phillips, L., Norris, S., &, Macnab, J., (2010). Visualization in mathematics, reading and science education. Dordrecht: Springer.
51. Prain, V., &, Tytler, R., (2012). Learning through constructing representations in science: A framework of representational affordances. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 2751-2773.
52. Prain, V., &, Waldrip, B., (2006). An exploratory study of teachers' and students' use of multimodal representations of concepts in primary science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1843-1866.
53. Renkl, A., (1995). Learning for later teaching: An exploration of meditational links between teaching expectancy and learning results. Learning and Instruction, 5 (1), 21-36.
54. Russell, J., &, Kozma, R., (2007). Assessing learning from the use of multimedia chemical visualizations. In, J. K. Gilbert, (Ed.), Visualization in science education. (pp. 299-332). Dordrecht: Springer.
55. Sadler, P. M., Gould, R., Brecher, K., &, Hoffman, B., (2000). Astronomical experiences using internet-accessible remote instrumentation. In, M. J. Jacobson, (Ed.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies and learning. (pp. 287-320). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
56. Sequira, M., &, Leite, L., (1991). Alternate conceptions and history of science in physics teacher education. Science Education, 75, 45-56.
57. Stake, R., (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
58. Taber, K. S., &, Tan, K. C. D., (2011). The insidious nature of 'hard-core' alternative conceptions: Implications for the constructivist research programme of patterns in high school students' and pre-service teachers' thinking about ionisation energy. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 259-297.
59. Tang, K. S., Delgado, C., &, Moje, E. B., (2014). An integrative framework for the analysis of multiple and multimodal representations for meaning-making in science education. Science Education, 98 (2), 305-326.
60. Trumper, R., Raviolo, A., &, Shnersch, A., (2000). A cross-cultural survey of conceptions of energy among elementary school teachers in training: Empirical results from Israel and Argentina. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 697-714.
61. Trundle, K., Atwood, R. K., &, Christopher, J., (2002). Preservice elementary teachers' conceptions of moon phases before and after instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 633-658.
62. Trundle, K., Atwood, R. K., &, Christopher, J., (2007). A longitudinal study of conceptual change: Preservice elementary teachers' conceptions of moon phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 303-326.
63. Tytler, R., (1998). Children's conceptions of air pressure: Exploring the nature of conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 929-958.
64. Tytler, R., (2008). Re-imagining science education. Melbourne, VIC: ACER.
65. Tytler, R., &, Prain, V., (2010). A framework for re-thinking learning in science from recent cognitive perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 2055-2078.
66. Tytler, R., Prain, V., Hubber, P., &, Waldrip, B, (2013). Constructing representations to learn science. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
67. White, R., &, Gunstone, R., (1989). Metalearning and conceptual change: Special issue. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 577-566.
68. White, R., &, Gunstone, R., (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer.
69. Yin, R., (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
70. Yore, L., &, Hand, B., (2010). Epilogue: Plotting a research agenda for multiple representations, multiple modality, and multimodal representational competency. Research in Science Education, 40, 93-101.