banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Learning Physical Science through Astronomy Activities: A Comparison between Constructivist and Traditional Approaches in Grades 3–6
Rent this article for
Access full text Article
1.American Association for the Advancement of Science 1993, Benchmarks for Science Literacy, New York: Oxford University Press.
2.Apelman, M. 1984, “Critical Barriers to Understanding of Elementary Science: Learning about Light and Color,” in Observing Science Classrooms: Observing Science Perspectives from Research and Practice, C. Anderson (Editor), Columbus, OH: ERIC∕SMEAC, Chapter 1.
3.Ausubel, D. 1968, Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
4.Diakidoy, I. N. , & Kendeou, P. 2001, “Facilitating Conceptual Change in Astronomy: A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Two Instructional Approaches,” Learn. Instr., 11(1), 1.
5.Driver, R. 1983, The Pupil as Scientist?, Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
6.Driver, R. 1994, Making Sense of Secondary Science: Research into Children’s Ideas, London: Routledge.
7.Etheredge, S. , & Rudnitsky, A. 2003, Introducing Students to Scientific Inquiry: How Do We Know What We Know?, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
8.Fulp, S. L. 2002, Status of Middle School Science Teaching, Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
9.Grennon Brooks, J. 2002, Schooling for Life: Reclaiming the Essence of Learning, Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum and Development.
10.Harcombe, E. 2001, Science Teaching∕Science Learning: Constructivist Learning in Urban Classrooms, New York: Teachers College Press.
11.Hestenes, D. 2000, Final Report to the NSF Teacher Enhancement Grant for Modeling Instruction in High School Physics, Tempe: Arizona State University.
12.Kober, N. 1993, What We Know about Science Teaching and Learning, Washington, DC: Council for Educational Development and Research.
13.Loucks-Horsley, S. , Hewson, P. , Love, N. , & Stiles, N. 1998, Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
14.McDermott, L. 2006, “Preparing K-1 Teachers in Physics: Insights from History, Experience, and Research,” Am. J. Phys., 74(9), 758.
15.Minstrell, J. , & Kraus, P. 2005, “Guided Inquiry in the Science Classroom,” in How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom, M. Donovan & J. Bransford (Editors), Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 475.
16.Murphy, P. , DeArmond, M. , & Guin, K. 2003, “A National Crisis or Localized Problems? Getting Perspective on the Scope and Scale of the Teacher Shortage,” Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(23), http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n23/.
17.National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. 2000, Before It’s Too Late: A Report to the Nation from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century, Washington, DC: Report of the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. http://www.ed.gov/inits/Math/glenn/toolate-execsum.html.
18.National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ). 2004, Attracting, Developing, and Retaining Effective Teachers, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
19.National Research Council. 1996, National Science Education Standards, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
20.National Science Teachers Association (with the Association for the Education of in Science). 1998, Standards for Science Teacher Preparation, Alexandria, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
21.Novak, J. 1993, “How Do We Learn Our Lessons?Sci. Teach., 60(3), 51.
22.Paige, R. 2002, Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge: The Secretary’s Annual Report on Teacher Quality, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
23.Piaget, J. 1929, The Child’s Conception of the World, New York: Harcourt Brace.
24.Piaget, J. 1953, The Child’s Construction of Reality, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
25.Posner, G. J. et al. 1982, “Accommodation of a Scientific Conception: Toward a Theory of Conceptual Change,” Sci. Educ., 66(2), 211.
26.Roth, K. J. 1989, “Science Education: It’s Not Enough to ‘Do’ or ‘Relate’,” in Relevant Research, M. Pearsall (Editor), Washington, DC: NSTA Press, 151.
27.Sadler, P. M. 1992, The Initial Knowledge State of High School Astronomy, Ed.D. Dissertation, Harvard University.
28.Sadler, P. M. 1998, “Psychometric Models of Student Conceptions in Science: Reconciling Qualitative Studies and Distractor-Driven Assessment Instruments,” J. Res. Sci. Teach., 35(3), 265.
29.Seastrom, M. M. , Grubez, K. , Hanke, R. , McGrath, D. , & Cohen, B. 2002, Qualifications of the Public School Teacher Workforce: Prevalence of Out-of-Field Training, 1987-88 to 1999-2000, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
30.Vosniadou, S. 1991, “Designing Curricula for Conceptual Restructuring,” Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23(3), 219.
31.Ward, R. B. , Catledge, J. , & Price, K. 2005, “ARIES: Science as Discoveryand Discovery as Science!” in Exemplary Science in Grades 5–8, R. Yager (Editor), Arlington, VA: NSTA Press, 195.
32.Weiss, I. , Banilower, E. , McMahon, K. , & Smith, P. S. 2001, Report of the 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education, Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
33.Weiss, I. , Pasley, J. D. , Smith, P. S. , Banilower, E. R. , & Heck, D. J. 2003, Looking Inside the Classroom, Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
34.Yager, R. 1991, “The Constructivist Learning Model,” Sci. Teach., 58(6), 53.
35.See EPAPS supplementary material at http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/AER2007015 for the additional appendix content in PDF format.[Supplementary Material]


Image of Figure 1.

Click to view

Figure 1.

Effect Size of Mean Gain by Item for ARIES and Control Students

Image of Figure 2.

Click to view

Figure 2.

Mean Posttest Scores vs. Mean Pretest Scores for ARIES and Control Students


Generic image for table

Click to view

Table 1.

Normalized Results for Control (C) and ARIES Students (T)


We report on an evaluation of the effectiveness of Project ARIES, an astronomy-based physical science curriculum for upper elementary and middle school children. ARIES students use innovative, simple, and affordable apparatus to carry out a wide range of indoor and outdoor hands-on, discovery-based activities. Student journals and comprehensive teacher materials aid in making the science content accessible to students based on their shared experiences and observations. Approximately 750 Grades 3–6 students in ARIES (or treatment) classrooms are compared with approximately 650 Grades 4–6 students in control classrooms through a series of open-ended assessment measures, using a pretest and posttest format. A detailed analysis by item measures the gain in treatment and control groups. We identify concepts where the ARIES approach is more effective, where both are equally effective, and where neither results in much learning. (The ARIES approach was never less effective.) Although learning is in evidence for both control and treatment groups, overall, the ARIES students achieve roughly four times the gain of their control counterparts. In particular, ARIES students had much greater gains for the concepts that the control students found most difficult.


Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Learning Physical Science through Astronomy Activities: A Comparison between Constructivist and Traditional Approaches in Grades 3–6