1887
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.
f
Meta-analysis of Planetarium Efficacy Research
Rent:
Rent this article for
Access full text Article
/content/aas/journal/aer/8/1/10.3847/AER2009033
1.
1.Baxter, J. H. and Preece, P. F. 2000, “A Comparison of Dome and Computer Planetaria in the Teaching of Astronomy,” Research in Science and Technological Education, 18, 63.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635140050031046
2.
2.Dean, N. J. and Lauck, G. M. 1972, “Planetarium Instruction-Using an Open-Sky Test,” The Science Teacher (Washington, D.C.), 39, 54.
3.
3.Durlak, J. A. 1995, in Reading and Understanding Multivariate Statistics, eds. Grimm, L. G. and Yarnold, P. R. , Washington: American Psychological Association, 319352.
4.
4.Edoff, J. D. 1982, “An Experimental Study of the Effectiveness of Manipulative Use in Planetarium Astronomy Lessons for Fifth and Eighth Grade Students,” Dissertation Abstracts International, B: The Sciences and Engineering, 43, 3496.
5.
5.Glass, G. V. , McGaw, B. , and Smith, M. L. 1981, Meta-Analysis in Social Research, Beverly Hills, Sage.
6.
6.Hayward, R. R. 1975, “The Developing and Field Testing of an Instrument Using the Planetarium to Evaluate the Attainment of the Concept of Annual Motion,” Dissertation Abstracts International, B: The Sciences and Engineering, 36, 4382.
7.
8.Lipsey, M. and Wilson, D. 2001, Practical Meta-Analysis. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Thousand Oaks: Sage, Vol. 49.
8.
9.Palmer, J. C. 2007, “The Efficacy of Planetarium Experiences to Teach Specific Science Concepts,” Dissertation Abstracts International, B: The Sciences and Engineering, 68, 939.
9.
10.Pitluga, L. 1971, “An Experimental Comparison of Planetarium Teaching Programs,” M.S. thesis, State University of New York–Oswego.
10.
11.Reed, G. 1970a, “Is the Planetarium a more Effective Teaching Device than the Combination of the Classroom Chalkboard and Celestial Globe?School Science and Mathematics, 70, 487.
11.
12.Reed, G. 1970b, “A Comparison of the Effectiveness of the Planetarium and the Classroom Chalkboard and Celestial Globe in the Teaching of Specific Astronomical Concepts,” Dissertation Abstracts International, B: The Sciences and Engineering, 31, 4580.
12.
13.Reed, G. and Campbell, J. R. 1972, “A Comparison of the Effectiveness of the Planetarium and the Classroom Chalkboard and Celestial Globe in the Teaching of Specific Astronomical Concepts,” School Science and Mathematics, 72, 368.
13.
15.Ridky, R. W. 1975, “The Mystique Effect of the Planetarium,” School Science and Mathematics, 75, 505.
14.
16.Rosemergy, J. C. 1968, “An Experimental Study of the Effectiveness of a Planetarium in Teaching Selected Astronomical Phenomena to Sixth-Grade Children,” Dissertation Abstracts International, B: The Sciences and Engineering, 28, 4959.
15.
17.Scott, R. L. 1985, “Teaching in the Planetarium,” Journal of College Science Teaching, 14, 248.
16.
18.Smith, B. A. 1966, “An Experimental Comparison of Two Techniques (Planetarium Lecture-Demonstration and Classroom Lecture-Demonstration) of Teaching Selected Astronomical Concepts to Sixth-Grade Students,” Dissertation Abstracts International, B: The Sciences and Engineering, 27, 887.
17.
19.Smith, T. V. 1974, “The Planetarium in Education: A Review of the Literature,” Nova University, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED111658.
18.
20.Sonntag, M. 1981, “An Experimental Study of Teaching Method, Spatial Orientation Ability, and Achievement in Selected Topics of Positional Astronomy,” Dissertation Abstracts International, B: The Sciences and Engineering, 42, 4783.
19.
21.Sunal, D. 1973, “The Planetarium in Education: An Experimental Study of the Attainment of Perceived Goals,” Dissertation Abstracts International, B: The Sciences and Engineering, 34, 1779.
20.
22.Sunal, D. 1976, “Analysis of Research on the Educational Uses of a Planetarium,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 13, 345.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660130409
21.
30.Thalheimer, W. , and Cook, S. 2002, “How to Calculate Effect Sizes from Published Research: A Simplified Methodology,” Retrieved April 14, 2008, from http://work-learning.com/effect_sizes.htm.
22.
23.Thompson, B. 2002, “Statistical, Practical, and Clinical: How Many Kinds of Significance do Counselors Need to Consider?Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 64.
23.
24.Tomlinson, G. 1997, “Grade Appropriate Concepts,” The Planetarian, 26, 7.
24.
25.Tuttle, D. 1966, “Effects of the Use of the Planetarium upon the Development of Spatial Concepts Among Sixth Grade Students in Elgin,” M.S. thesis, Northern Illinois University.
25.
26.Twiest, M. G. 1989, “The Attitudinal and Cognitive Effects of Planetarium Integration in Teaching Selected Astronomical Concepts to Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth-Grade Students,” Dissertation Abstracts International, B: The Sciences and Engineering, 51, 473.
26.
27.Wilson, D. 2002, “Practical Meta-Analysis,” Presentation to the American Evaluation Association, http://mason.gmu.edu/~dwilsonb/ma.html.
27.
28.Wright, D. L. 1968, “Effectiveness of the Planetarium and Different Methods of its Utilization in Teaching Astronomy,” Dissertation Abstracts International, B: The Sciences and Engineering, 3, 507.
28.
29.Yee, A. H. , Baer, J. M. , and Holt, K. D. 1971, An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of School Planetarium Experiences, Educational Technology Research No. 41, Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aas/journal/aer/8/1/10.3847/AER2009033
Loading
View: Tables

Tables

Generic image for table

Click to view

Table 1.

Effect Sizes for Planetarium Instructional Efficacy

Abstract

In this study, the instructional effectiveness of the planetarium in astronomy education was explored through a meta-analysis of 19 studies. This analysis resulted in a heterogeneous distribution of 24 effect sizes with a mean of , . The variability in this distribution was not fully explained under a fixed effect model. As a result, a random effects model was applied. However, a large random effect variance component indicated that study differences were indeed systematic. The findings of this meta-analysis showed that the planetarium has been an effective astronomical teaching tool.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/aas/journal/aer/8/1/1.3227033.html;jsessionid=iv87iyy8p0s5.x-aip-live-06?itemId=/content/aas/journal/aer/8/1/10.3847/AER2009033&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/aas/journal/aer
true
true
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Meta-analysis of Planetarium Efficacy Research
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aas/journal/aer/8/1/10.3847/AER2009033
10.3847/AER2009033
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM