Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 46, Issue 5, pp 685–713 | Cite as

Taking on the Heat—a Narrative Account of How Infrared Cameras Invite Instant Inquiry

  • Jesper HaglundEmail author
  • Fredrik Jeppsson
  • Konrad J. Schönborn
Article

Abstract

Integration of technology, social learning and scientific models offers pedagogical opportunities for science education. A particularly interesting area is thermal science, where students often struggle with abstract concepts, such as heat. In taking on this conceptual obstacle, we explore how hand-held infrared (IR) visualization technology can strengthen students’ understanding of thermal phenomena. Grounded in the Swedish physics curriculum and part of a broader research programme on educational uses of IR cameras, we have developed laboratory exercises around a thermal storyline, in conjunction with the teaching of a heat-flow model. We report a narrative analysis of how a group of five fourth-graders, facilitated by a researcher, predicts, observes and explains (POE) how the temperatures change when they pour hot water into a ceramic coffee mug and a thin plastic cup. Four chronological episodes are described and analysed as group interaction unfolded. Results revealed that the students engaged cognitively and emotionally with the POE task and, in particular, held a sustained focus on making observations and offering explanations for the scenarios. A compelling finding was the group’s spontaneous generation of multiple “what-ifs” in relation to thermal phenomena, such as blowing on the water surface, or submerging a pencil into the hot water. This was followed by immediate interrogation with the IR camera, a learning event we label instant inquiry. The students’ expressions largely reflected adoption of the heat-flow model. In conclusion, IR cameras could serve as an access point for even very young students to develop complex thermal concepts.

Keywords

Infrared cameras Primary school Heat Temperature Predict-observe-explain Instant inquiry 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Charles Xie for sharing ideas of how IR cameras may enable school science inquiry. We also kindly thank all involved students and the teachers who developed the overall storyline and collaborated during design and implementation of the IR camera labs.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The ethical requirements stipulated by the Swedish authorities for conducting educational research in schools were strictly adhered to. Informed consent to participate in the study was gathered from the students’ parents, and pseudonyms of the participants are used throughout the text to guarantee anonymity.

References

  1. Amin, T. G. (2001). A cognitive linguistics approach to the layperson’s understanding of thermal phenomena. In A. Cienki, B. Luka, & M. Smith (Eds.), Conceptual and discourse factors in linguistic structure (pp. 27–44). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, M., & Millar, R. (1996). Learning the scientific “story”: a case study in the teaching and learning of elementary thermodynamics. Science Education, 80(3), 249–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkins, L. J., Velez, L., Goudy, D., & Dunbar, K. (2009). The unintended effects of interactive objects and labels in the science museum. Science Education, 93(1), 161–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brunsell, E., & Horejsi, M. (2010). Science 2.0: instant inquiry. The Science Teacher, 77(8), 10.Google Scholar
  5. Cabello, R., Navarro-Esbrí, J., Llopis, R., & Torrella, E. (2006). Infrared thermography as a useful tool to improve learning in heat transfer related subjects. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(2), 373–380.Google Scholar
  6. Cazzaniga, L., Giliberti, M., & Ludwig, N. The use of infrared thermography to create a “bridge” connecting physics in the lab to physics of building. In A. Lindell, A.-L. Kähkönen, & J. Viiri (Eds.), GIREP-EPEC, Jyväskylä, Finland, 1-5 August, 2011 (pp. 13-18): University of JyväskyläGoogle Scholar
  7. Chandler, P. (2009). Dynamic visualisations and hypermedia: beyond the “wow” factor. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 389–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang, H.-Y., & Linn, M. C. (2013). Scaffolding learning from molecular visualizations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(7), 858–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Creswell, J. (1997). Creating worlds, constructing meaning: the Scottish storyline method (teacher to teacher series). Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  12. Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., et al. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  14. Dexter, A. (2013). Seeing the unseen: an investigation of heat transfer using infrared thermography and LabVIEW. Tufts University.Google Scholar
  15. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2-3), 105–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. diSessa, A. A. (2014). The construction of causal schemes: learning mechanisms at the knowledge level. Cognitive Science, 38(5), 795–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duit, R. (1984). Learning the energy concept in school—empirical results from the Philippines and West Germany. Physics Education, 19(2), 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Engel Clough, E., & Driver, R. (1985). Secondary students’ conceptions of the conduction of heat: bringing together scientific and personal views. Physics Education, 20(4), 176–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Enghag, M., & Niedderer, H. (2008). Two dimensions of student ownership of learning during small-group work in physics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(4), 629–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Erickson, G. L. (1985). Heat and temperature. Part A: an overview of pupils’ ideas. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children’s ideas in science (pp. 55–66). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fredlund, T., Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2012). Exploring the role of physics representations: an illustrative example from students sharing knowledge about refraction. European Journal of Physics, 33(3), 657–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: toward an interpretative theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures: selected essays (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  23. Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modelling: routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gupta, A., Hammer, D., & Redish, E. F. (2010). The case for dynamic models of learners’ ontologies in physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 285–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haglund, J., Jeppsson, F., & Andersson, J. (2012). Young children’s analogical reasoning in science domains. Science Education, 96(4), 725–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haglund, J., Jeppsson, F., & Andersson, J. (2014). Primary school children’s ideas of mixing and of heat as expressed in a classroom setting. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(5), 726–739.Google Scholar
  27. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Helldén, G. (2005). Exploring understandings and responses to science: a program of longitudinal studies. Research in Science Education, 35(1), 99–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Howe, C. (1998). Conceptual structure in childhood and adolescence: the case of everyday physics. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Howe, C., & Tolmie, A. (2003). Group work in primary school science: discussion, consensus and guidance from experts. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1–2), 51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Howe, C., Tolmie, A., Greer, K., & Mackenzie, M. (1995). Peer collaboration and conceptual growth in physics: task influences on children’s understanding of heating and cooling. Cognition and Instruction, 13(4), 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89(1), 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Klahr, D., Zimmerman, C., & Jirout, J. (2011). Educational interventions to advance children’s scientific thinking. Science, 333(6045), 971–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kröger, J. (2012). Entwicklung von Experimenten zur Einführung der Energieentwertung und Energieerhaltung im Physikunterricht der Mittelstufe (Development of experiments for the introduction of energy degradation and energy conservation in secondary physics teaching). Christian-Albrechts-Univerität Kiel.Google Scholar
  39. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371–388). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lewis, E. L., & Linn, M. C. (1994). Heat energy and temperature concepts of adolescents, adults, and experts: implications for curricular improvements. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(6), 657–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Linn, M. C. (2003). Technology and science education: starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 727–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Mach, E. (1896/1986). Principles of the theory of heat. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel.Google Scholar
  44. Möllmann, K.-P., & Vollmer, M. (2007). Infrared thermal imaging as a tool in university physics education. European Journal of Physics, 28(3), S37–S50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Naghedolfeizi, M., Arora, S., & Glover, J. E. (2011). Visualizing conductive and convective heat transfer using thermographic techniques. Paper presented at the 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 12-15, Rapid City, SD.Google Scholar
  46. Okebukola, P. A., & Ogunniyi, M. B. (1984). Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic science laboratory interaction patterns—effects on students’ achievement and acquisition of practical skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(9), 875–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Olson, S., & Loucks-Horsely, S. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: a guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  48. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pendrill, A.-M., Karlsteen, M., & Rödjegård, H. (2012). Stopping a roller coaster train. Physics Education, 47(6), 728–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Perkins, K., Adams, W., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N., Reid, S., Wieman, C., et al. (2006). PhET: interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. The Physics Teacher, 44(1), 18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Piaget, J. (1929). The child’s conception of the world. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Piaget, J. (1930). The child’s conception of physical causality. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  53. Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgement of the child. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  54. Piaget, J., & Garcia, R. (1977). Understanding causality. New York: The Norton Library.Google Scholar
  55. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science education now: a renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  57. Rosebery, A. S., Ogonowski, M., DiSchino, M., & Warren, B. (2010). “The coat traps all your body heat”: heterogeneity as fundamental to learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 322–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schönborn, K. J., Haglund, J., & Xie, C. (2014). Pupils’ early explorations of thermoimaging to interpret heat and temperature. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(1), 118–132.Google Scholar
  59. Shayer, M., & Wylam, H. (1981). The development of the concepts of heat and temperature in 10-13 year-olds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(5), 419–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Short, D. B. (2010). Thermal imaging in the science classroom. School Science Review, 94(346), 75–78.Google Scholar
  61. Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2005). How do learners in different cultures relate to science and technology? Results and perspectives from the project ROSE (the Relevance of Science Education). Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 1–17.Google Scholar
  62. Skolverket. (2011). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and the recreational centre 2011. Stockholm: Swedish National Agency for Education.Google Scholar
  63. Tiberghien, A. (1985). Heat and temperature. Part B: the development of ideas with teaching. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children’s ideas in science (pp. 67–84). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Tobin, K. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: in pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90(5), 403–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2005). A longitudinal study of children’s developing knowledge and reasoning in science. Research in Science Education, 35(1), 63–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vollmer, M., & Möllmann, K.-P. (2010). Infrared thermal imaging: fundamentals, research and applications. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vollmer, M., Möllmann, K.-P., Pinno, F., & Karstädt, D. (2001). There is more to see than eyes can detect—visualization of energy transfer processes and the laws of radiation for physics education. The Physics Teacher, 39(6), 371–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  70. White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  71. Wiser, M., & Amin, T. G. (2001). “Is heat hot?” inducing conceptual change by integrating everyday and scientific perspectives on thermal phenomena. Learning and Instruction, 11(4-5), 331–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Xie, C. (2011). Visualizing chemistry with infrared imaging. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(7), 881–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Xie, C. (2014). The Concord Consortium. Infrared tube. http://energy.concord.org/ir. Accessed 16 May 2014.
  75. Xie, C., & Hazzard, E. (2011). Infrared imaging for inquiry-based learning. The Physics Teacher, 49(6), 368–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Xie, C., & Tinker, R. (2006). Molecular dynamics simulations of chemical reactions for use in education. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(1), 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jesper Haglund
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Fredrik Jeppsson
    • 1
  • Konrad J. Schönborn
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Social and Welfare StudiesLinköping UniversityNorrköpingSweden
  2. 2.Department of Physics and AstronomyUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  3. 3.Department of Science and TechnologyLinköping UniversityNorrköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations