Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Order Matters: Sequencing Scale-Realistic Versus Simplified Models to Improve Science Learning

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Teachers choosing between different models to facilitate students’ understanding of an abstract system must decide whether to adopt a model that is simplified and striking or one that is realistic and complex. Only recently have instructional technologies enabled teachers and learners to change presentations swiftly and to provide for learning based on multiple models, thus giving rise to questions about the order of presentation. Using disjoint individual growth modeling to examine the learning of astronomical concepts using a simulation of the solar system on tablets for 152 high school students (age 15), the authors detect both a model effect and an order effect in the use of the Orrery, a simplified model that exaggerates the scale relationships, and the True-to-scale, a proportional model that more accurately represents the realistic scale relationships. Specifically, earlier exposure to the simplified model resulted in diminution of the conceptual gain from the subsequent realistic model, but the realistic model did not impede learning from the following simplified model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aleixandre MPJ (1994) Teaching evolution and natural selection: a look at textbooks and teachers. J Res Sci Teach 31(5):519–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson D, Fisher K, Norman G (2002) Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. J Res Sci Teach 39(10):952–978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel DP (1969) Some psychological and education limitations of learning by discovery. In: Andersen HO (ed) Readings in science education for the secondary school. Macmillan Company, New York, New York, pp 97–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett FC, Burt C (1933) Remembering: a study in experimental and social psychology. Br J Educ Psychol 3(2):187–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baun DA, Smith SD, Donovan SS (2005) The tree-thinking challenge. Science 310(5750):979–980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland LK, McNeill KL (2010) A learning progression for scientific argumentation: understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Sci Educ 94(5):765–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boroditsky L (2000) Metaphoric structuring: understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 75(1):1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boudreaux H, Bible P, Cruz-Neira C, Parham T, Cervato C, Gallus W, Stelling P (2009) V-volcano: addressing students’ misconceptions in earth sciences learning through virtual reality simulations. In International symposium on visual computing. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 1009–1018

  • Box GE, Draper NR (1987) Empirical model-building and response surfaces, vol 424. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyes E (1988) Catastrophic misconceptions in science education. Phys Educ 23(2):105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer WF, Nakamura GV (1984) The nature and functions of schemas (Technical report no. 325). University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs D, Alonzo A, Schwab C, Wilson M (2006) Diagnostic assessment with ordered multiple-choice items. Educ Assess 11(1):33–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron L (2003) Metaphor in educational discourse. A&C Black

  • Carey S (2000) Science education as conceptual change. J Appl Dev Psychol 21(1):13–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chater N, Lyon K, Myers T (1990) Why are conjunctive categories overextended? J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 16(3):497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chew SL (2006) Seldom in doubt but often wrong: addressing tenacious student misconceptions. In: Chew SL, Dunn DL (eds) Best practices for teaching introduction to psychology. Erlbaum, Mahway, pp 211–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement JJ (2008) Student/teacher co-construction of visualizable models in large group discussion. In: Clement J, Rea-Ramirez MA (eds) Model based learning and instruction in science. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 11–22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Collins A (1989) Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology (Technical report no. 474). University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana

    Google Scholar 

  • Coopmans C, Vertesi J, Lynch, ME, Woolgar S (2014) Representation in scientific practice revisited. MIT Press

  • Corcoran T, Mosher FA, Rogat A (2009) Learning progressions in science: an evidence-based approach to reform. CPRE Research Reports. http://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/53

  • de Jong T, Linn MC, Zacharia ZC (2013) Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science 340(6130):305–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Digirolamo GJ, Hintzman DL (1997) First impressions are lasting impressions: a primacy effect in memory for repetitions. Psychon Bull Rev 4(1):121–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diomidous M, Verginis I, Mantas J (1998) The construction of a simulation-based system for the development of powerful and realistic models and practicals for healthcare professionals. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 2(3):174–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodick J, Orion N (2003) Cognitive factors affecting student understanding of geologic time. J Res Sci Teach 40(4):415–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver R, Easley J (1978) Pupils and paradigms: a review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Stud Sci Educ 5(1):61–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan RG, Gotwals AW (2015) A tale of two progressions: on the benefits of careful comparisons. Sci Educ 99(3):410–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan RG, Castro-Faix M, Choi J (2016) Informing a Learning Progression in Genetics: which Should BE Taught First, Mendelian Inheritance or the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology?. Int J Sci Math Educ, 14(3):445–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan RG, Rogat AD, Yarden A (2009) A learning progression for deepening students’ understandings of modern genetics across the 5th–10th grades. J Res Sci Teach 46(6):655–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl R, Maeng S, Sezen A (2011) Learning progressions and teaching sequences: a review and analysis. Stud Sci Educ 47(2):123–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elmesky R (2013) Building capacity in understanding foundational biology concepts: a K-12 learning progression in genetics informed by research on children’s thinking and learning. Res Sci Educ 43(3):1155–1175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford DN, McCormack DE (2000) Effects of time scale focus on system understanding in decision support systems. Simul Gaming 31(3):309–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francoeur E (1997) The forgotten tool: the design and use of molecular models. Soc Stud Sci 27(1):7–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederiksen JR, White BY, Gutwill J (1999) Dynamic mental models in learning science: the importance of constructing derivational linkages among models. J Res Sci Teach 36(7):806–836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagne RM (1965) The conditions of learning. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner WA, Strohmer DC, Langford CA, Boas GJ (1994) Diagnostic and treatment overshadowing bias across disabilities: are rehabilitation professionals immune? J Appl Rehabil Couns 25:33–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner D (1983) Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cogn Sci 7(2):155–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner D, Wolff P (1997) Alignment in the processing of metaphor. J Mem Lang 37(3):331–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner D, Wolff P (2000) Metaphor and knowledge change. In: Dietrich E, Markman A (eds) Cognitive dynamics: conceptual change in humans and machines. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 295–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Giere RN (1999) Using models to represent reality. Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery. Springer, New York, pp 41–57

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Giere RN (2004) How models are used to represent reality. Philos Sci 71(5):742–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert JK (2004) Models and modelling: routes to more authentic science education. Int J Sci Math Educ 2(2):115–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert JK, Boulter C, Rutherford M (1998) Models in explanations, Part 1: horses for courses? Int J Sci Educ 20(1):83–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith DW (2003) The great clade race: presenting cladistic thinking to biology majors and general science students. Am Biol Teacher 65:679–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith L, Schloss P (1984) Diagnostic overshadowing among learning-disabled and hearing-impaired learners with an apparent secondary diagnosis of behavior disorders. Int J Partial Hosp 2:209–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Halloun IA, Hestenes D (1985) The initial knowledge state of college physics students. Am J Phys 53(1):1043–1055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haste H (2001) Ambiguity, autonomy and agency: psychological challenges to new competence. In: Rychen D, Salganik L (eds) Defining and selecting key competencies. Hogrefe & Huber, Kirkland, pp 93–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie J, Yates GC (2013) Visible learning and the science of how we learn. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayward M (2009) Earth science misconceptions. Teach Earth Sci 34(2):34

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewson PW, Hewson MGB (1984) The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instr Sci 13(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingham AM, Gilbert JK (1991) The use of analogue models by students of chemistry at higher education level. Int J Sci Educ 13(2):193–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justi R, Gilbert JK, Ferreira PF (2009) The application of a “model of modelling” to illustrate the importance of metavisualisation in respect of the three types of representation. Multiple representations in chemical education. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 285–307

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Keeley JW, DeLao CS, Kirk CL (2013) The commutative property in comorbid diagnosis does A+B = B+A? Clin Psychol Sci 1(1):16–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kharitonova M, Munakata Y (2011) The role of representations in executive function: investigating a developmental link between flexibility and abstraction. Front Psychol. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00347

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma R (2003) The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learn Instr 13(2):205–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff G, Johnson M (1980) Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin J, Chabay RW (1989) Research on teaching scientific thinking: implications for computer-based instruction, in toward the thinking curriculum: current cognitive research. ASCD, Alexandria

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour B, Strum SC (1986) Human social origins: Oh please, tell us another story. J Soc Biol Struct 9(2):169–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leatherdale WH (1974) The role of analogy, model and metaphor in science. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer R, Schauble L (2012) Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Sci Educ 96(4):701–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitan GW, Reiss S (1983) Generality of diagnostic overshadowing across disciplines. Appl Res Mental Retard 4(1):59–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linenberger KJ, Bretz SL (2012) Generating cognitive dissonance in student interviews through multiple representations. Chem Educ Res Pract 13(3):172–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Low G (2008) Metaphor and education. In: The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, pp 212–231

  • Lynch M, Woolgar S (eds) (1990) Representation in scientific practice, p 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT press

  • Magnani L, Nersessian N, Thagard P (eds) (2012) Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery. Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Masson S, Potvin P, Riopel M, Foisy LMB (2014) Differences in brain activation between novices and experts in science during a task involving a common misconception in electricity. Mind Brain Educ 8(1):44–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer RE (1976) Some conditions of meaningful learning for computer programming: advance organizers and subject control of frame order. J Educ Psychol 68(2):143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meir E, Herron JC, Maruca S, Stal D, Kingsolver J (2005) EvoBeaker 1.0. SimBiotic Software, Ithaca. http://www.simbio.com/

  • Meir E, Perry J, Herron JC, Kingsolver J (2007) College students’ misconceptions about evolutionary trees. Am Biol Teacher 69(7):e71–e76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer JH, Land R (2005) Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. High Educ 49(3):373–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer J, Land R (2013) Overcoming barriers to student understanding: threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer JHF, Shanahan M (2003). The troublesome nature of a threshold concepts in economics. Paper presented to the 10th Conference of the European Association fro Research on Learning an Instruction (EARLI), Padova

  • Michael J (2007) What makes physiology hard for students to learn? Results of a faculty survey. Adv Physiol Educ 31(1):34–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller BW, Brewer WF (2010) Misconceptions of astronomical distances. Int J Sci Educ 32(12):1549–1560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller JK, Westerman DL, Lloyd ME (2004) Are first impressions lasting impressions? An exploration of the generality of the primacy effect in memory for repetitions. Memory Cogn 32(8):1305–1315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzes JJ, Wandersee JH, Novak JD (2005) Assessing science understanding: a human constructivist view. Educational psychology. Academic Press, Cambridge, MA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mohan L, Chen J, Anderson CW (2009) Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. J Res Sci Teach 46(6):675–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton JP, Doran DA, MacLaren DP (2008) Common student misconceptions in exercise physiology and biochemistry. Adv Physiol Educ 32(2):142–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller DA, Sharma MD, Reimann P (2008) Raising cognitive load with linear multimedia to promote conceptual change. Sci Educ 92(2):278–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment, National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4962

  • Nersessian N (1984) Faraday to Einstein: constructing meaning in scientific theories. Springer Science & Business Media

  • Nersessian NJ (1999) Model-based reasoning in conceptual change. In Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 5–22). Springer US

  • Nersessian NJ (2002) Maxwell and “the method of physical analogy”: Model-based reasoning, generic abstraction, and conceptual change. Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science and Mathematics, 129–166

  • Odom AL (1993) Action potentials and biology textbooks: accurate, misconceptions or avoidance? Am Biol Teacher 55(8):468–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry J, Meir E, Herron JC, Maruca S, Stal D (2008) Evaluating two approaches to helping college students understand evolutionary trees through diagramming tasks. CBE Life Sci Educ 7(2):193–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget J (1951) The child’s conception of the world (No. 213). Rowman & Littlefield

  • Plummer JD, Krajcik J (2010) Building a learning progression for celestial motion: elementary levels from an earth-based perspective. J Res Sci Teach 47(7):768–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner GJ, Strike KA, Hewson PW, Gertzog WA (1982) Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Sci Educ 66(2):211–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raghavan K, Glaser R (1995) Model-based analysis and reasoning in science: the MARS curriculum. Sci Educ 79(1):37–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rea-Ramirez MA (2008) Determining target models and effective learning pathways for developing understanding of biological topics. In: Clement J, Rea-Ramirez MA (eds) Model based learning and instruction in science. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 45–58

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth CM (1999) The elaboration theory: guidance for scope and sequence decisions. Instr Design Theories Models: A New Paradigm Instr Theory 2:425–453

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss S, Levitan GW, Szyszko J (1982) Emotional disturbance and mental retardation: diagnostic overshadowing. Am J Mental Defic 86:567–574

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenblueth A, Wiener N (1945) The role of models in science. Philos Sci 12(4):316–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roumeliotis M (1998) Simulation techniques. Paratiritis, Athens

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouse WB, Morris NM (1986) On looking into the black box: prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychol Bull 100(3):349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler P (1998) Psychometric models of student conceptions in science: reconciling qualitative studies and distractor-driven assessment instruments. J Res Sci Teach 35(3):265–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler PM, Coyle H, Miller JL, Cook Smith N, Dussault M, Gould RR (2010) The astronomy and space science concept inventory: development and validation of assessment instruments aligned with the K-12 national science standards. Astron Educ Rev 8:0111

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneps MH, Sadler PM (1987) A private universe. Pyramid Films, Santa Monica

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneps MH, Ruel J, Sonnert G, Dussault M, Griffin M, Sadler PM (2014) Conceptualizing astronomical scale: virtual simulations on handheld tablet computers reverse misconceptions. Comput Educ 70:269–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz CV, Reiser BJ, Davis EA, Kenyon L, Achér A, Fortus D et al (2009) Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. J Res Sci Teach 46(6):632–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sfard A (1998) On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educ Res 27(2):4–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer JD, Willett JB (2003) Applied longitudinal data analysis: modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder JL (2000) An investigation of the knowledge structures of experts, intermediates and novices in physics. Int J Sci Edu 22(9):979–992

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder HR, Munakata Y (2010) Becoming self-directed: abstract representations support endogenous flexibility in children. Cognition 116(2):155–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiro RJ, Feltovich PJ, Coulson RL, Anderson DK (1989) Multiple analogies for complex concepts: antidotes for analogy-induced misconception in advanced knowledge acquisition. Cambridge, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Springer K, Murphy GL (1992) Feature availability in conceptual combination. Psychol Sci 3(2):111–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg MS (2008) Target model sequence and critical learning pathway for an electricity curriculum based on model evolution. In: Clement J, Rea-Ramirez MA (eds) Model based learning and instruction in science. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 79–102

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg MS, Wainwright CL (1993) Using models to teach electricity: the CASTLE project. Phys Teacher 31:353–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens SY, Delgado C, Krajcik JS (2010) Developing a hypothetical multi-dimensional learning progression for the nature of matter. J Res Sci Teach 47(6):687–715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Merrienboer JJ, Sweller J (2005) Cognitive load theory and complex learning: recent developments and future directions. Educ Psychol Rev 17(2):147–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Aufschnaiter C, Rogge C (2010) Misconceptions or missing conceptions. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ 6(1):3–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker G (2013) A cognitive approach to threshold concepts. High Educ 65(2):247–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson B, Cole P (1991) A review of cognitive teaching models. Educ Tech Res Dev 39(4):47–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisniewski EJ (1996) Construal and similarity in conceptual combination. J Mem Lang 35(3):434–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaitchik D, Iqbal Y, Carey S (2013) The effect of executive function on biological reasoning in young children: an individual differences study. Child Dev 85(1):160–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zander C, Boustedt J, Eckerdal A, McCartney R, Moström JE, Ratcliffe M, Sanders K (2008) Threshold concepts in computer science: a multi-national empirical investigation. In: Land R, Meyer J, Smith J (eds) Threshold concepts within the disciplines. Sense, Rotterdam, pp 105–118

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part from funds from a George E. Burch Foundation fellowship to the Smithsonian Institution for MHS. We thank the faculty members of the Bedford High School Science department for their contributions to this experiment, Jon Sills for encouraging this research, and Robert Speiser for insights and discussion. Assessment items were generated with funding from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Structure and Evolution of the Universe Forum (NCC5-706) and from the National Science Foundation grant for MOSART (Misconceptions-Oriented Standards-Based Assessment Resource for Teachers, NSF HER 0412382). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation, the Smithsonian Institution, or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Chen Chen

  2. University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, USA

    Matthew H. Schneps

  3. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Matthew H. Schneps

  4. Harvard-Smithonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Chen Chen & Gerhard Sonnert

Authors
  1. Chen Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew H. Schneps
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gerhard Sonnert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chen Chen.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Tables 1, 2 and Figs. 1, 2, 3.

Table 1 Final fitted multilevel models describing differences in participant responses to scale-related and scale-neutral questions as a function of treatment type and order of presentation, controlling for the fixed effects of class and gender (in percent)
Full size table
Table 2 Estimated impact of exposure to either the True-to-scale or the Orrery solar model, when implemented as the first or second treatment, on student responses to scale-related and scale-neutral questions about astronomy (estimated impacts constructed from slope estimates listed in Table 1)
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Sample stimuli for Orrery and True-to-scale models. Screen shots from the Solar Walk app (Vito Technology, Alexandria, VA) used in this experiment. Left column are examples of “Orrery (ORR) mode” exaggerating the size of bodies relative to their orbits. Right column are the same views seen in “True-to-scale (TTS) mode,” treating scale relationships more accurately

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Estimated growth trajectory of scale-related astronomy concepts as a result of different order of model exploration. The solid line represents that the students are using True-to-scale (TTS solar model. The dashed line represents that the students are using Orrery (ORR) solar

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Estimated growth trajectory of scale-related astronomy concepts as a result of different order of model exploration. The solid line represents that the students are using True-to-scale (TTS solar model. The dashed line represents that the students are using Orrery (ORR) solar model

Full size image

Appendix 2: Measurement items

  1. 1.

    How long does it take for the Moon to go around the Earth?

    1. a)

      1 day.

    2. b)

      1 week.

    3. c)

      1 month.

    4. d)

      1 year.

    5. e)

      It never happens.

  2. 2.

    You observe the Moon tonight in the first quarter phase (figure A). What is the least time you will need to wait until you can see the full Moon (figure B)?

    1. a)

      6 h

    2. b)

      1 day

    3. c)

      1 week

    4. d)

      2 weeks

    5. e)

      1 month

  3. 3.

    Janice goes outside to observe the Moon one evening. Looking south, she sees the Moon at position C in the sky in the diagram below. At what position will she see the Moon in 1 h?

    1. a)

      Position A

    2. b)

      Position B

    3. c)

      Position C

    4. d)

      Position D

    5. e)

      Position E

  4. 4.

    An eclipse of the Sun can only occur:

    1. a)

      In the spring.

    2. b)

      In the fall.

    3. c)

      At the summer or winter solstices.

    4. d)

      When the Moon is full.

    5. e)

      When the Moon is new.

  5. 5.

    If you could look down from space at the Earth from far above its north pole, the Sun and Moon would be in the directions shown by the arrows in the picture below. What would the Moon look like to a person on the Earth facing the Moon?

  6. 6.

    Which shape of the Moon below will be seen least often during 1 year?

  7. 7.

    When could you see a full Moon on the eastern horizon?

    1. a)

      Sunrise

    2. b)

      Sunset

    3. c)

      Noon

    4. d)

      Midnight

    5. e)

      Anytime of day or night

  8. 8.

    One night you looked at the Moon and saw Figure A. A few days later you looked again and saw Figure B. Why did the Moon change shape?

    1. a)

      Clouds covered part of the Moon.

    2. b)

      The Moon moved out of the Earth’s shadow.

    3. c)

      The Moon moved out of the Sun’s shadow.

    4. d)

      The Moon is black and white and rotates on its axis once a month.

    5. e)

      We see a different amount of the illuminated side of the Moon.

  9. 9.

    Boston is one quarter of the way around the Earth east of Hawaii. If a person in Hawaii sees a full Moon, shape D below, which shape would the Moon look like to a person in Boston that same day?

  10. 10.

    Which is the most accurate model of the Moon in relative size and distance from the Earth? (The larger object in each model is the Earth.)

  11. 11.

    Of the following choices, which looks most like the Earth’s path around the Sun?

    Response deliberately omitted This item is actively being used in research at the time of this publication and has been redacted to preserve the integrity of ongoing studies that may be compromised by the broad publication of this item. Interested readers are referred to MOSART (Misconceptions-Oriented Standards-Based Assessment Resources for Teachers) where this item and others are available in a self-service test bank of items: http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/smgphp/mosart/. Tests there can be freely accessed after completion of an online tutorial that explains test design, use, scoring, and interpretation of results.

  12. 12.

    If you used a basketball to represent the Sun, about how far away would you put a scale model of the Earth?

    1. a)

      1 foot or less.

    2. b)

      5 feet.

    3. c)

      10 feet.

    4. d)

      25 feet.

    5. e)

      100 feet.

  13. 13.

    During July at the North Pole, the Sun would:

    1. a)

      Be overhead at noon.

    2. b)

      Never set.

    3. c)

      Be visible for 12 h each day.

    4. d)

      Set in the northwest.

    5. e)

      None of the above.

  14. 14.

    The main reason for it being hotter in summer than in winter is:

    1. a)

      The Earth’s distance from the Sun changes.

    2. b)

      The Sun is higher in the sky.

    3. c)

      The distance between the northern hemisphere and the Sun changes.

    4. d)

      Ocean currents carry warm water north.

    5. e)

      The Sun produces heat and light at a faster rate in the summer.

  15. 15.

    If the Earth’s orbit was perfectly circular, what would happen to the seasons?

    1. a)

      There would no longer be seasons.

    2. b)

      The southern hemisphere would always be in winter.

    3. c)

      The northern hemisphere would always be in winter.

    4. d)

      Fall and spring would last twice as long.

    5. e)

      We would have basically the same seasons.

  16. 16.

    Order the following from smallest to largest.

    • Earth diameter

    • International Space Station altitude

    • Distance Earth to Jupiter

    • Distance New York to Los Angeles

    • Distance Earth to Sun

    • Distance Earth to Moon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, C., Schneps, M.H. & Sonnert, G. Order Matters: Sequencing Scale-Realistic Versus Simplified Models to Improve Science Learning. J Sci Educ Technol 25, 806–823 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9642-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9642-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation