Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 191–202 | Cite as

Understanding Scale: Powers of Ten

  • M. Gail JonesEmail author
  • Amy Taylor
  • James Minogue
  • Bethany Broadwell
  • Eric Wiebe
  • Glenda Carter


The classic film “Powers of Ten” is often employed to catalyze the building of more accurate conceptions of scale, yet its effectiveness is largely unknown. This study examines the impact of the film on students’ concepts of size and scale. Twenty-two middle school students and six science teachers participated. Students completed pre- and post-intervention interviews and a Scale Card Sorting (SCS) task; all students observed the film “Powers of Ten.” Experienced teachers’ views on the efficacy of the film were assessed through a short written survey. Results showed that viewing the film had a positive influence on students’ understandings of powers of ten and scale. Students reported that they had more difficulty with sizes outside of the human scale and found small scales more difficult to conceptualize than large scales. Students’ concepts of relative size as well as their ability to accurately match metric sizes in scientific notation to metric scale increased from pre- to post-viewing of the film. Experienced teachers reported that the film was a highly effective tool. Teachers reported that the design of the film that allowed students to move slowly from the human scale to the large and small scales and then quickly back again was effective in laying the foundation for understanding the different scales.


scale measurement technology. 


  1. Allain, A. (2001). Development of an instrument to measure proportional reasoning among fast-track students. Unpublished master’s thesis, North Carolina State University, RaleighGoogle Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Barab S., Hay K., Squire K., Barnett M., Schmidt R., Karrigan K., Yamagata-Lynch L. Johnson C. (2000). Virtual solar system project: Learning through a technology-rich, inquiry-based, participatory learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology 9(1): 7–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryant D. J., Tversky B. (1999). Mental representations of perspective and spatial relations from diagrams and models. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25(1):137–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chi M. T. H., Koeske R. (1983). Network representation of a child’s dinosaur knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 19:29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark J. M., Paivio A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3):149–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Confrey J. (1991). Learning to listen: A student’s understanding of powers of ten. In von Glasersfeld E. (Eds.), Radical constructivism in mathematics education, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. 111–138Google Scholar
  8. Eliot J. (1987). Models of psychological space: Psychometric, developmental, and experimental approaches. NY: Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  9. Fabos B. Y., Michelle D. (1999). Telecommunications in the classroom: Rhetoric versus reality. Review of Educational Research, 69(3):217–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hegarty M., Montello D. R., Richardson A. E., Ishikawa T., Lovelace K. (2006). Spatial abilities at different scales: Individual differences in aptitude-test performance and spatial-layout learning. Intelligence, 34:151–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ittelson W. H. (1973). Environment perception and contemporary perceptual theory. In W. H. Ittelson (Eds.), Environment and cognition, New York, NY: Seminar Press, (pp. 1–19)Google Scholar
  12. Jones M. G., Rua, M. (in press). Conceptual representations of flu and microbial illness held by students, teachers, and medical professionals. School Science and Mathematics Google Scholar
  13. Jones, M. G., Taylor, A., Broadwell, B., and Oppewal, T. (2006). Experts’ concepts of scale. Unpublished manuscriptGoogle Scholar
  14. Lamon S. (1994). Ratio and proportion: Cognitive foundations in unitizing and norming. In G. Harel J. Confrey (Eds)., The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 89–120Google Scholar
  15. Lesh R., Post R.,and Behr M. (1988). Proportional reasoning, In J. Hiebert M. Behr (Eds)., Number concepts and operations in the middle grades, Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, pp. 93–118Google Scholar
  16. Paivio A. (1983). The empirical case for dual coding. In J. C. Yuille (Ed.), Imagery, memory, and cognition, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, (pp. 307–332)Google Scholar
  17. Patton, P. (1999). Expanding on “Powers of Ten” to convey Eameses’ genius. New York Times. New York, NY, p. G.12Google Scholar
  18. Pozo J., Crespo M. (2005). The embodied nature of implicit theories: The consistency of ideas about the nature of matter. Cognition and Instruction 23:351–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Previc F. H. (1998). The neuropsychology of 3-D space. Psychological Bulletin, 124:123–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sera M., Troyer D., and Smith L. (1988). What do two-year olds know about the sizes of things?. Child Development, 59:1489–01496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tourniaire F., and Pulos S. (1985). Proportional reasoning: A review of the literature. Educational Studies in Mathematics 16(2):181–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tretter T. R., Jones M. G., Andre T., Negishi A., Minogue J. (2006). Conceptual boundaries and distances: Students’ and adults’ concepts of the scale of scientific phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 83:282–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tretter T. R., and Jones M. G. (2003). A sense of scale. The Science Teacher, 70(1):22–25Google Scholar
  24. Yang E. M., Andre T. and Greenbowe T. J. (2003). Spatial ability and the impact of visualization/animation on learning electrochemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3):329–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Gail Jones
    • 1
    Email author
  • Amy Taylor
    • 1
  • James Minogue
    • 2
  • Bethany Broadwell
    • 1
  • Eric Wiebe
    • 1
  • Glenda Carter
    • 1
  1. 1.NC State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.College of New JerseyEwingUSA

Personalised recommendations