Which One Is More Effective in Teaching the Phases of the Moon and Eclipses: Hands-On or Computer Simulation?

  • Kasım Kiroğlu
  • Cumhur Türk
  • İbrahim Erdoğan


The aim of this study is to comparatively investigate the effects of hands-on models (HMs) and computer simulations (CSs) on teaching the phases and eclipses of the Moon. In this study, two different HMs were developed, and three different CSs were used. The research work group consisted of 100 pre-service science teachers. A quasi-experimental method with two groups (teaching through hands-on models [THM] and teaching through computer simulations [TCS]) was used in this study. The data for the study were obtained by using an open-ended questionnaire form. The data were acquired three times as pre-instruction, post-instruction, and long-after instruction (retention) and were analyzed through a content analysis technique. The analyses were implemented in two stages (i.e., a question-by-question analysis and an integrated analysis) by evaluating the answers given to all questions together. As a result of the analyses, it was determined that both methods are effective in teaching the phases and eclipses of the Moon. However, when the retention data were examined, it was observed that more students in THM group answered correctly than TCS group. Besides, upon the integrated analysis, it was concluded that THM, as opposed to TCS, led more pre-service teachers to the “scientific” model. From this point of view, it has been proposed to popularize the usage and production of HMs in astronomy education. Finally, the conditions that must be taken into account in order to overcome some alternative thoughts identified in the phases and eclipses of the Moon are noted.


Hands-on model Computer simulation Phases of the moon Eclipses 



  1. Abell, S., Martini, M., & George, M. (2001). “That's what scientists have to do”: preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science during a moon investigation. International Journal of Science Education, 23(11), 1095–1109.Google Scholar
  2. Akpan, J. P., & Andre, T. (1999). The effect of a prior dissection simulation on middle school students’ dissection performance and understanding of the anatomy and morphology of the frog. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(2), 107–121.Google Scholar
  3. Aktamış, H., & Arıcı, V. A. (2013). The effects of using virtual reality software in teaching astronomy subjects on academic achievement and retention. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 9(2), 58–70.Google Scholar
  4. Allessi, S., & Trollip, S. R. (1991). Computer based instruction: methods and development (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Barron, A. E., & Orwig, G. W. (1997). New technologies for education: a beginner’s guide. USA: Libraries Unlimited Inc..Google Scholar
  6. Bass, K. M., Danielle, Y., & Julia, H. (2011). The effect of raft hands-on activities on student learning, engagement, and 21st century skills. (Accessed: 7 December 2016,
  7. Baxter, J. (1989). Children’s understanding of familiar astronomical events. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 502–513.Google Scholar
  8. Black, A. A. (2004). Relationship of earth science misconceptions and conceptual understandings with three types of spatial abilities in university non-science majors. Vancouver: National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST).Google Scholar
  9. Blake, C., & Scanlon, E. (2007). Reconsidering simulations in science education at a distance: features of effective use. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 491–502. Scholar
  10. Broadstock, M. J. (1992) Elementary students’ alternative conceptions about earth systems phenomena in Taiwan, republic of China. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  11. Callison, P. L., & Wright, E. L. (1993). The effect of teaching strategies using models on preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions about earth-sun-moon relationships. Atlanta: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.Google Scholar
  12. Dai, M. 1991, Identification of misconceptions about the moon held by fifth and sixth graders in Taiwan and an application of teaching strategies for conceptual change (fifth graders), Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, no. 03A, 0869.Google Scholar
  13. de Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179–201.Google Scholar
  14. Diakidoy, I. N., & Kendeou, P. (2001). Facilitating conceptual change in astronomy: a comparison of the effectiveness of two instructional approaches. Learning and Instruction, 11(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  15. Dove, J. (2002). Does the man in the moon ever sleep? An analysis of student answers about simple astronomical events: a case study. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 823–834.Google Scholar
  16. Ekwueme, C. O., Ekon, E., & Ezenwa-Nebife, D. C. (2015). The impact of hands-on-approach on student academic performance in basic science and mathematics. Higher Education Studies, 5(6), 47–51.Google Scholar
  17. Fanetti, T. M. (2001). The relationships of scale concepts on college age students’ misconceptions about the cause of lunar phases. Unpublished Master thesis, Iowa State University, Ames.Google Scholar
  18. Flick, L. B. (1993). The meanings of hands-on science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 4(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
  19. Foster, G. (1996). Look to the moon. Science and Children, 34(3), 30–33.Google Scholar
  20. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  21. Frede, V. (2008). The seasons explained by reputational modeling activities. Astronomy Education Review, 7(1), 44–56. Google Scholar
  22. Gobert, J. D. (2000). A typology of causal models for plate tectonics: inferential power and barriers to understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 937–977.Google Scholar
  23. Hein, G. E. (1987). The right test for hands-on learning. Science and Children, 25(2), 8–12. Scholar
  24. Hobson, S. M., Trundle, K. C., & Saçkes, M. (2010). Using a planetarium software program to promote conceptual change with young children. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(2), 165–176.Google Scholar
  25. Jodl, H., & Eckert, B. (1998). Low-cost, high-tech experiments for educational physics. Physics Education, 33(4), 226–235.Google Scholar
  26. Jones, B., & Lynch, P. (1987). Children’s conceptions of the earth, sun and moon. International Journal of Science Education, 9(1), 45–53.Google Scholar
  27. Kavanagh, C., Agan, L., & Sneider, C. (2005). Learning about phases of the moon and eclipses: a guide for teachers and curriculum developers. Astronomy Education Review, 4(1), 19–52.Google Scholar
  28. Kikas, E. (1998). The impact of teaching on students' definitions and explanations of astronomical phenomena. Learning and Instruction, 8(5), 439–454. Scholar
  29. Küçükahmet, L. (2000). Teaching as a profession. Entry into the teaching profession. Ankara: Nobel.Google Scholar
  30. Lin, Y. C., Liu, T. C., & Sweller, J. (2015). Improving the frame design of computer simulations for learning: determining the primacy of the isolated elements or the transient information effects. Computers & Education, 88, 280–291.Google Scholar
  31. Lumpe, A. T., & Oliver, J. S. (1991). Dimensions of hands-on science. The American Biology Teacher, 53(6), 345–348.Google Scholar
  32. Meinhard, R. (1992). Concept process-based science in the elementary school. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Education.Google Scholar
  33. Meyer, A. O., Mon, M. J., & Hibbard, S. T. (2011). The lunar phases project: a mental model-based observational project for undergraduate nonscience majors. Astronomy Education Review, 10(1), 120–131.Google Scholar
  34. Miles, B. M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  35. Mulholland, J., & Ginns, I. (2008). College MOON Project Australia: pre service teachers learning about the moon phases. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 385–399.Google Scholar
  36. NGSS, Next Generation Science Standards (2013). (Accessed: 10 September 2014,
  37. NRC, National Research Council. (2012). Framework for K-12 science education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  38. Plummer, J. D. (2014). Spatial thinking as the dimension of progress in an astronomy learning progression. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 1–45. Scholar
  39. Rider, S. (2002). Perceptions about moon phases. Science Scope, 26(3), 48–51.Google Scholar
  40. Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2011). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153.Google Scholar
  41. Sadler, P. M. (2001). Choosing between teaching helioseismology and phases of the moon. The Physics Teacher, 39, 554–555.Google Scholar
  42. Schoon, K. (1992). Students’ alternative conceptions of earth and space. Journal of Geological Education, 40(3), 209–214.Google Scholar
  43. Schoon, K. J. (1995). The origin and extent of alternative conceptions in the earth and space sciences: a survey of pre-service elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 7(2), 27–41.Google Scholar
  44. Shapley, K. S., & Luttrell, H. D. (1993). Effectiveness of a teacher training model on the implementation of hands-on science. Paper presented at the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science International Conference, Charleston, SC.Google Scholar
  45. Şimşek, H., & Yıldırım, A. (2011). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences. Ankara: Seçkin.Google Scholar
  46. Sönmez, V., & Alacapınar, F. (2014). Sampled scientific research methods. (Extended 3rd Edition). Ankara: Anı Publishing.Google Scholar
  47. Stahly, L., Krockover, G. H., & Shepardson, D. P. (1999). Third grade students’ ideas about the lunar phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 159–177.Google Scholar
  48. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. (2007). Teaching for successful intelligence: to increase student learning and achievement (2nd ed.). California: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  49. Suzuki, M. (2003). Conversations about the moon with prospective teachers in Japan. Science Education, 87(6), 892–910.Google Scholar
  50. Taylor, I., Barker, M., & Jones, A. (2003). Promoting mental model building in astronomy education. International Journal of Science Education, 25(10), 1205–1225.Google Scholar
  51. Thompson, A., Simonson, M., & Hargrave, C. (1996). Educational technology: a review of the research. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.Google Scholar
  52. Trumper, R. (2000). University students’ conceptions of basic astronomy concepts. Teaching Physics, 35(1), 9–15.Google Scholar
  53. Trumper, R. (2001). A cross-age study of junior high school students’ conceptions of basic astronomy concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 23(11), 1111–1123.Google Scholar
  54. Trundle, K. C., & Bell, R. L. (2010). The use of a computer simulation to promote conceptual change: A quasi-experimental study. Computers and Education, 54(4), 1078–1088.Google Scholar
  55. Trundle, C. K., Atwood, K. R., & Christopher, E. J. (2002). Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of moon phases before and after instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 633–658. Scholar
  56. Trundle, K. C., Atwood, R. K., & Christopher, J. E. (2007). Fourth-grade elementary students’ conceptions of standards-based lunar concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 29(5), 595–616.Google Scholar
  57. Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2017). Overcoming “Earth Science blindness.” Earth Science in action in Natural History Dioramas. In: Hands-on science. Growing with science (Vol. 14, pp. 1–4). The Hands-on Science Network (HSCI).Google Scholar
  58. Türk, C. & Kalkan, H. (2015). The effect of planetariums on teaching specific astronomy concepts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(1), 1–15.
  59. Türk, C., & Kalkan, H. (2017). Student opinions on teaching astronomy with hands-on models. Journal of Human Sciences, 14(4), 3853–3865.
  60. Türk, C., Kalkan, H. & Yıldırım, B. (2017). An experimental study on the teaching of seasons: model transformation. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 8(27), 531–561.Google Scholar
  61. Türk, C., & Kalkan, H. (2018). Teaching seasons with hands-on models: model transformation. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(3), 324–352.
  62. Vosniadou, S. (1991). Designing curricula for conceptual restructuring: lessons from the study of knowledge acquisition in astronomy. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23(3), 219–237. Scholar
  63. Vosniadou, S. (1992). Knowledge acquisition and conceptual change. Applied Psychology, 41(4), 347–357. Scholar
  64. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. (1992). Mental models of the earth: a study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535–585. Scholar
  65. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18(1), 123–183. Scholar
  66. Winn, W., Stahr, F., Sarason, C., Fruland, R., Oppenheimer, P., & Lee, Y. (2006). Learning oceanography from a computer simulation compared with direct experience at sea. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 25–42.Google Scholar
  67. Yu, K. C. (2005). Digital full-domes: the future of virtual astronomy education. Planetarian Journal of the International Planetarium Society, 34(3), 6–11.Google Scholar
  68. Zeilik, M., Schau, C., & Mattern, N. (1998). Misconceptions and their change in university level astronomy courses. The Physics Teacher, 36(2), 104–107. Scholar
  69. Zeilik, M., Schau, C., & Mattern, N. (1999). Conceptual astronomy. II. Replicating conceptual gains, probing attitude changes across three semesters. American Journal of Physics, 67(10), 923–927.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kasım Kiroğlu
    • 1
  • Cumhur Türk
    • 2
  • İbrahim Erdoğan
    • 3
  1. 1.Primary Education Program, Faculty of EducationOndokuz Mayıs UniversitySamsunTurkey
  2. 2.Pre-school Education Program, Faculty of EducationMuş Alparslan UniversityMuşTurkey
  3. 3.Science Education Program, Faculty of EducationMuş Alparslan UniversityMuşTurkey

Personalised recommendations