Abstract
Concepts related to Einsteinian physics are usually not taught until students are in university, denying younger children access to this powerful way of understanding space, time and gravity. Considerable research has shown, however, that complex and abstract scientific ideas can be presented in age appropriate ways that result in measurable learning. The purpose of the research presented in this paper was to explore the impact of an enrichment program on aspects of Einsteinian physics on year 6 (10 and 11 years old) children’s understanding of and attitudes towards this topic. The research design was an exploratory case study of one class of 26 students who participated in six in-class lessons as well as an excursion to a science centre, the Gravity Discovery Centre, and a scripted play about relevant key scientists. Mixed methods of data collection included a pre/post-instruction questionnaire, classroom observations and an interview with the physics professor who conducted the program. The results indicated a statistically significant improvement in children’s conceptual understanding on the pre/post-questionnaire with a small effect size. Analysis of individual items on the questionnaire indicated variable results with regard to particular concepts. For example, after the enrichment program, students were better able to understand curved space, but little improvement was observed in their understanding of gravity on the Moon. The majority of students reported being interested and engaged in the program of activities and did not feel that they were too young to learn concepts related to Einstein’s physics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority) (2012). The Australian curriculum: science. http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au. Accessed Retrieved 30 May 2012.
Aldwinckle, M. (2001). The DAP debate: are we throwing the baby out with the bath water? Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 26, 36–39. http://search.informit.com.au/fullText;dn=112693;res=AEIPT. Accessed 12 Oct 2012. (ISSN: 0312-5033).
Aschbacher, P. R., Li, E., & Roth, E. J. (2010). Is science me? High school students’ identities, participation and aspirations in science, engineering, and medicine. International Journal of Science Education, 45(5), 564–582.
Aubusson, P. J., Harrison, A. G., & Ritchie, S. M. (2006). Metaphor and analogy in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Baily, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2008). Student perspectives in quantum physics. 2008 Physics Education Research Conference, Edmonton, Alberta, 23-24 July 2008. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1064, 67–70. doi:10.1063/1.3021275.
Bandyopadhyay, A., & Kumar, A. (2010). Probing students’ understanding of some conceptual themes in general relativity. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 6(2), doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020104.
Bennett, J., & Hogarth, S. (2009). Would you want to talk to a scientist at a party? High school students’ attitudes to school science and to science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(14), 1975–1998.
Bliss, J. (1995). Piaget and after: the case of learning science. Studies in Science Education, 25, 139–172.
Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: David McKay.
California Department of Education. (2000). Science content standards for California public schools: Kindergarten through Grade 12. Sacramento, CA: Author. (Reposted June 11 2009) ISBN: 0-8011-1496-9. http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/sciencestnd.pdf. Accessed 9 July, 2012.
Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Curriculum Council. (2012). Physics: Accredited March 2008 (updated June 2011). For teaching 2012, examined in 2012. Perth, Western Australia.
Deep physics can be child’s play. (2011, November 28). UWA News, p. 6.
Dostal, J. A. (2005). Student concepts of gravity. Unpublished thesis. Iowa State University.
Duit, R. (1991). The role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649–672.
Falla, D. (2012). Light, gravity and black holes. School Science Review, 94(346), 59–65.
Feeley, R. E. (2007). Identifying student concepts of gravity. Unpublished thesis. University of Maine.
Haddad, W. D., & Pella, M. O. (1972). Relationship between mental maturity and level of understanding of concepts of relativity in grades 4-8. The Journal of Experimental Education, 41(1), 22–32.
Harrison, A., & Treagust, D. (1993). Teaching with analogies: a case study in grade-10 optics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1291–1307.
Haynes, L. (2008). Studying STEM: What are the barriers? The Institute of Engineering and Technology (IET). http://www.theiet.org. Accessed 14 Nov 2011.
Hirsch Jr, E. D. (2006). Building knowledge: the case for bringing content into the language arts block and for a knowledge-rich curriculum core for all children. American Educator, Spring [Electronic version]. http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/spring2006/editors.cfm. Accessed 16 Oct 2010.
Logan, M., & Skamp, K. (2008). Engaging students in science across the primary secondary interface: listening to the students’ voices. Research in Science Education, 38(4), 501–527.
Lyons, T., & Quinn, F. (2010). Choosing science: understanding the declines in senior high school science enrolments. Research Report to the Australian Science Teachers Association. UNE.
Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual (4th ed.). Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Rennie, L. J. (2007). Learning science outside of school. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 125–167). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rennie, L. J., & Johnston, D. J. (2007). Research on learning from museums. In J. H. Falk, L. D. Dierking, & S. Foutz (Eds.), In principle, in practice: museums as learning institutions (pp. 57–74). Lanham: AltaMira.
She, H.-C., & Liao, Y.-W. (2010). Bridging scientific reasoning and conceptual change through adaptive web-based learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 91–119.
Stone, J. E. (1996). Developmentalism: an obscure but pervasive restriction. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 4, 8. http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/631. Accessed 12 Oct 2012.
Treagust, D. F., & Smith, C. L. (1989). Secondary students’ understanding of gravity and the motion of planets. School Science and Mathematics, 89(5), 380–391.
Tytler, R., & Prain, V. (2010). A framework for re-thinking learning in science from recent cognitive science perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 32(15), 2055–2078.
Universities Australia. (2012). STEM and nonSTEM first year students. Canberra: Australia. Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au. Accessed 25 Feb 2012.
Venville, G., & Treagust, D. (1996). The role of analogies in promoting conceptual change in biology. Instructional Science, 24, 295–320.
Venville, G., Blair, D., Coward, D., Deshon, F., Gargano, M., Gondwe, M., & Zadnik, M. (2012). Research informed science enrichment programs at the Gravity Discovery Centre. Teaching Science, 58(1), 33–39.
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.
Vosniadou, S. (2003). Exploring the relationships between conceptual change and intentional learning. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 377–406). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Willingham, D. T. (2008). What is developmentally appropriate practice? American Educator, Summer, 34–39.
Wulf, R., Mayhew, L. M., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2010). Impact of informal science education on children’s attitudes about science. 2010 Physics Education Research Conference, Portland, Oregon, 21–22 July 2010. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1289, 337–340. doi:10.1063/1.3515238.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Young, M. (2008). From constructivism to realism in the sociology of the curriculum. In G. J. Kelly, A. Luke, & J. Green (Eds.), Review of Research in Education, 32, 1–28.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a grant from the Australian Research Council, the Gravity Discovery Centre and the Graham (Polly) Farmer Foundation (LP100100640). The views expressed are those of the authors and not of the sponsor organisations. We would like to acknowledge the contribution of all the project team members and, in particular, the teacher and students who participated in this program on a voluntary basis.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This manuscript was submitted to Research in Science Education (RISE), September 2013.
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pitts, M., Venville, G., Blair, D. et al. An Exploratory Study to Investigate the Impact of an Enrichment Program on Aspects of Einsteinian Physics on Year 6 Students. Res Sci Educ 44, 363–388 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9386-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9386-6