Speaker
Dr
Urban Eriksson
(National resource center for physics education, physics departement, Lund University, Lund, Sweden)
Description
When entering the discipline of physics, and in particular astronomy, students are faced with many challenges. Not only do they need to learn to “read” and “write” the “language of the discipline”, built by all the semiotic systems and resources (tools, representations, and activities) used by the discipline, but also to learn to think spatially, or extrapolate three-dimensionality from 1D and 2D input (Eriksson et al., 2014), e.g. mathematics, diagrams, images, etc. Although identified as very important (eg. Hegarty, 2014; Lindgren & Schwartz, 2009; NRC, 2006; Plummer, 2014; Uttal & Cohen, 2012), extrapolating three-dimensionality is a severely overlooked competency in both physics and astronomy education that poses a real challenge to novice students in their meaning-making; they are often left by them self to try to imagine what an astronomical object may look like in 3D. Furthermore, from the physics and astronomy education research literature, only very few other efforts have been identified to address the challenges associated with extrapolating three-dimensionality (eg. Heyer et al., 2013). Hence, extrapolating three-dimensionality becomes an important educational aspect to consider when teaching physics and astronomy.
In this paper we report on an international study where perception of the third dimension, depth, in astronomical 2D imagery and psudo-3D simulations has been the main focus. We have chosen to focus on astronomical nebulae, because these are very common in astronomy textbooks/teaching material and teaching situations. Astronomy students and professors have been asked about their noticing of depth from astronomical 2D images and psudo-3D simulations in order for us to map their competency in extrapolating three-dimensionality in their minds. In analyzing their responds, we use a standard qualitative research method, and take as our point-of-departure Eriksson et al. (2014) hierarchical categories for multidimensionality discernment. Our preliminary results suggest that the competency to “read” depth in astronomical image/simulation is very limited by new-to-the-discipline students but also that simulations, where motion parallax is offered, could help students in their meaning-making and extrapolation of three-dimensionality in their minds. Implications in regards to our findings will be discussed.
Eriksson, U., Linder, C., Airey, J., & Redfors, A. (2014). Who needs 3D when the Universe is flat? Science Education, 98(3), 31.
Hegarty, M. (2014). Spatial Thinking in Undergraduate Science Education. Spatial Cognition and Computation.
Heyer, I., Slater, S., & Slater, T. (2013). Establishing the empirical relationship between non-science majoring undergraduate learners' spatial thinking skills and their conceptual astronomy knowledge. RELEA(16).
Lindgren, R., & Schwartz, D. L. (2009). Spatial Learning and Computer Simulations in Science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(3).
National Research Council. (2006). Learning to Think Spatially: GIS as a Support System in the K-12 Curriculum: The National Academies Press.
Plummer, J. D. (2014). Spatial thinking as the dimension of progress in an astronomy learning progression. Studies in Science Education.
Uttal, D. H., & Cohen, C. A. (2012). Spatial thinking and STEM education: When, why and how. Psychology of learning and motivation, 57.
Primary author
Dr
Urban Eriksson
(National resource center for physics education, physics departement, Lund University, Lund, Sweden)
Co-author
Dr
Wolfgang Steffen
(UNAM)
