conversations about the moon with prospective teachers in japan

SCIENCE TEACHEREDUCATION

Deborah Trumbull, Section Editor

Conversations About the Moonwith Prospective Teachersin Japan

MARIKO SUZUKIScience Education, Faculty of Education, Shiga University, 2-5-1 Hiratsu,Otsu City 520-0862, Japan

Received 9 April 2002; revised 29 August 2002; accepted 8 October 2002

ABSTRACT: As an instructor in courses for prospective teachers, I am interested in my stu-dents’ ideas and ways in which they reconstruct their ideas in conversations about science.In the case study presented here, I reflect upon (a) ways in which I engaged prospectiveteachers in thinking together about their observations of a natural phenomenon, the chang-ing phases of the moon, and (b) the ideas that they expressed. The case study examinesways in which prospective teachers developed understandings of the sun–earth–moon sys-tem from two perspectives: as viewed from the earth and from outside the solar system.C© 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 87:892–910, 2003; Published online in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/sce.10082

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this research was to investigate ways in which prospective elementaryand junior high school teachers think and talk about astronomical phenomena, such as thephases of the moon. This topic provides a context for exploring prospective teachers’ ideasabout space and their location within the cosmos. As an instructor in courses for prospectiveteachers, I am interested in my students’ ideas and ways in which they reconstruct theirideas as they talk with one another.

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, San Diego, CA, USA, April 17, 1998 (Suzuki & van Zee, 1998).

Correspondence to: Mariko Suzuki; e-mail: [email protected] grant sponsor: Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan.Contract grant number: 14022105 and 14580192.

C© 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

CONVERSATIONS ABOUT MOON WITH PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS 893

Investigations of Students’ Ideas About the Moon, Earth, and Sun

Many investigators have examined students’ ideas of the relationships among the moon,earth, and sun (Abell, Martini, & George, 2001; Jones, Lynch, & Reesink, 1987; Klein, 1982;Lightman & Sadler, 1993; Nussbaum, 1979, 1985; Schoon, 1992; Sharp, 1996; Sneider &Poulos, 1983). Understanding day and night is the first step in understanding these rela-tionships. In an investigation of first, third, and fifth graders’ mental models of the dayand night cycle, for example, Vosniadou and Brewer (1994) found that younger childrenformed initial models based on everyday experiences. The older children constructed syn-thetic mental models that represented attempts to synthesize the culturally accepted viewwith aspects of their initial models. Only a few of the older children appeared to haveconstructed a mental model of the day and night cycle similar to the scientific one. Prospec-tive elementary school teachers frequently hold similar problematic conceptions of cosmicrelationships (Atwood & Atwood, 1997; Schoon, 1992).

A common belief among both children and adults is that the phases of the moon arecaused by the shadow of the earth falling on the moon (Baxter, 1989; Bisard et al., 1994;Philips, 1991; Schoon, 1992; Stahly, Krockover, & Shepardson, 1999). This belief maybe formed or enhanced when newscasters provide visual and verbal explanations of lunareclipses. However, usually news stories do not direct attention to the regular changes in themoon’s apparent shape. Another common belief is that clouds are responsible for coveringthe part of the moon that we cannot see. Many people seem to be unaware of the role of thesun as the source of the light that is reflected from the moon’s surface.

The scientifically accepted explanation is that the moon’s apparent shape changes becausethe moon’s position with respect to the sun and earth changes. As the moon orbits the earth,we see varying portions of the side of the moon that is lit by the sun. Understanding theserelationships requires complex thinking in three dimensions from two perspectives—whatwe see here on the earth and what we infer we would see if we were looking down on thesun, earth, and moon from above the solar system.

Learning Science Through Discussion

Learning science through discussions has been used as a teaching method by manypractitioners in Japan, especially elementary school teachers. Several practitioners havepublished pedagogical techniques for conducting discussions in science classes based ontheir practical experiences (e.g. Ishiguro, 1991a, 1991b; Takikawa,1992). For example, thesepractitioners have stated that children have their own ideas and teachers should encouragechildren to express these. They have also described ways to foster discussions such asacknowledging students’ ideas and praising useful aspects of students’ contributions. Inaddition, practitioners have described creating a “circle” of discussions in which teacherstake time for students to consider one another’s thinking and help students develop ways toexpand or narrow discussions.

In order to encourage all students to participate in discussions, these practitioners recom-mend that teachers try not to let students feel afraid of making mistakes. Teachers also shouldnot talk too much themselves. These practitioners also explicitly teach ways of speakingabout discussions. They suggest fostering discussions by organizing students’ ideas andasking questions that help focus thinking. If repeated several times, the question shouldnot change. Questions should create contexts for students’ thinking, direct attention to rel-evant materials, and help students expand or narrow a discussion. These practitioners alsohave suggested rules for designing classes in which they distinguish among presentations,debates, and discussions: all ideas should be presented and categorized; then students can

894 SUZUKI

debate between two ideas; finally they discuss which ideas can be eliminated and whichmerit continued consideration.

One of the most famous discussion methods in Japan is the “hypothesis–experiment–instruction” developed by Itakura (1967) and his colleagues. The effectiveness of thismethod was recognized and introduced by Hatano and Inagaki (1991) from the perspectiveof social cognition. The method focuses upon problem-solving tasks and engages studentsin giving and seeking appropriate help. An instructor using this method first presents aquestion and three or four alternatives as answers. After asking students to decide on ananswer, the instructor records on the board the number choosing each alternative. Thenthe instructor encourages students to explain and discuss their choices with one another.After asking students to decide on an alternative again, the instructor demonstrates with anexperiment or presents a reading that illuminates which answer is most appropriate.

In whole class discussions such as hypothesis–experiment– instruction, a teacher canfacilitate the discussions as a chair. However, during small group work, every student hasthe responsibility of fostering the discussion. In order to encourage students to animate theirdiscussions by themselves, I think it is important to consider group composition. In earlierresearch, I explored small group collaborative learning about the solar system in junior highschool science classes (Suzuki, 2001).

Initial Investigations of Students’ UnderstandingsAbout the Solar System

In an earlier research (Suzuki, 1998), I investigated how Japanese students at a junior highschool (n = 352 boys and girls in the 12–15-year-age groups) used their knowledge aboutthe solar system when explaining an astronomical phenomenon. Students answered a prob-lem in a questionnaire. The problem was about the diagram shown in Figure 1. (Translatedfrom the Japanese) “This diagram represents the Western sky at the end of the day. Wheredo you think Venus will be after some days in this diagram? Draw an arrow to show thedirection of the movement. Write the reasons you drew an arrow. If you drew more than onearrow, write the reasons for your thinking. If you need, explain the reason with diagrams.”

This problem can be solved by using the scientific concept of the solar system. First, in thesolar system, Venus and the Earth are moving around the Sun. The orbit of Venus is closer tothe Sun than the orbit of the Earth. Their orbits are almost in the same plane (see Figure 2a).Second, the relationship of the Earth with Venus in the solar system should be considered.Depending on the relationship, directions of the movements of Venus are predicted in theorbit of Venus. Two directions are represented in Figure 2b. Third, the horizontal plane of

Figure 1. The problem (Suzuki, 1998).


Figure 2. A solution of the problem (not to scale) (Suzuki, 1998).

the Earth should be related to the solar system. In this process, a three-dimensional solarsystem should be imagined. The horizontal plane of the Earth inclines to the plane of theorbits of the solar system (see Figure 2c). Fourth, viewing from the inclining horizontalplane of the Earth to the plane of the orbits of the solar system, directions of the movementsof Venus can be shown as arrows. Figure 2d represents two arrows.

The students’ responses were grouped into three notions. These are described later in thecontext of a second study. No significant difference was found in the frequency with whichstudents used concepts of the solar system before and after instruction.

This problem also formed the basis for a second study (Suzuki, 2001) which examinedhow group composition was related to the reconstruction of students’ ideas when theyexplained the movement of Venus to one another in small groups. Students expressedseveral notions about the solar system: Notion 1: Children did not refer to the solar system.This notion involved two levels of childrens’ ideas. One was that children confuse annualmotion with diural motion. Second was that childen apply knowledge of the movement ofthe sun, the moon or stars. Notion 2: Children tried to use constructed concepts of the solarsystem as a tool when thinking. This notion had four levels of children’s ideas. One was thatthe observer views from another point in the universe, not from the earth. Second was thatthe observer stands in position at noontime or lies in position at sunset. Third was that theobserver stands in position at sunset. Fourth was that childen integrate a concept of the solar

896 SUZUKI

system and a concept of the celestial sphere and the observer stands in position at sunset.Notion 3: Children used the scientific concepts of the solar system as a tool when thinking.This notion included two levels of children’s ideas. One was that children confuse how anobserver stands in three dimensions. Second was that the observer stands on the earth andthe standing point is in Japan at sunset.

Students’ use of notions about the solar system was more likely to change by at leastone higher level when the students were arranged in heterogeneous groups in which mem-bers initially had used diverse ideas, compared to arrangement in homogenous groups inwhich members initially had used similar ideas. Both arrangements were more effective inprompting use of higher level notions about the solar system by at least one level than thearrangement already in use in the science class. In small groups where all members initiallyhad used the same idea, it was inferred that a higher level notion could be reconstructed ifthey had a lively discussion. Moreover, participation of persuasive or talkative students ina group seemed to be more important in promoting use of more scientific notions about thesolar system than to arrange groups on the basis of initial ideas used. Also, it seemed to beimportant to facilitate the expression of ideas by less persuasive students because more per-suasive students tended to control conversations of their small groups. On the basis of thisstudy, it seems to be desirable for small groups to be designed so as to enable participantsto raise cognitive conflicts through animated discussions.

To enhance disciplinary understanding such as the movement of Venus during collab-orative learning, it is necessary to consider what students think about the task and, whenarranging small groups, how students behave in regular classes. Moreover, it seemed to bedifficult and important to facilitate students’ understanding of the three-dimensional un-derstandings of the sun–earth–moon system from two perspectives, when thinking abouta related cosmic problem such as the changing phases of the moon. As discussed below, Iexplored student difficulties in this context with prospective teachers.

Prospective Teachers’ Discussion About the Phases of the Moon

While visiting the United States, I observed a seminar in which the instructor engagedprospective teachers in watching the moon (van Zee, 2000). The approach was similar to thatdescribed by Duckworth (1987) and drew on materials for students (Elementary ScienceStudy, 1968; Sneider, 1986) and teachers (McDermott, 1996). Whenever the students sawthe moon, they recorded what they observed and what they were thinking about what theywere seeing. They discussed these observations among themselves and with the instructor inclass. I adapted this approach in designing my courses for prospective teachers in Japan. Thecase study presented here documents and interprets some of the thinking that prospectiveteachers expressed during discussions about the moon in my courses. The questions thatguided the case study were as follows:

• How do I engage prospective teachers in thinking together about the moon?• What ideas about the moon do the prospective teachers express?

METHODOLOGY

This qualitative case study (Erickson, 1986; Gallagher, 1991) documents students’ ideasand their reconstruction of these ideas in two research seminars in science education forprospective elementary and junior high school teachers. The participants were membersof the Research Group of Science Education of the Department of Natural Science in auniversity in Japan. The seminars met for 90 min weekly. One seminar was for sophomores


(n = 4, 1995). The purpose of the sophomore seminar included preparing for teaching at anaffiliated school during the next academic year and cultivating the students’ perceptions ofthemselves as science education researchers. The second seminar was for juniors (n = 4,1995) to prepare for senior research during the next academic year. Also included was the re-search conducted by a senior in the context of teaching about the moon. All of these studentshad completed a course on astronomy and were familiar with diagrams of the sun, earth, andmoon from the perspective of the universe. They had not, however, made observations of thesun and moon themselves over an extended time period as part of their university studies.

The primary data sources were video- and audiotapes of instruction, copies of students’writings and drawings, and questionnaires administered in class. Development of the casestudy involved analyzing transcripts of conversations and students’ writings in order toidentify students’ conceptions about the moon and to trace ways in which they reconstructedthese conceptions in talking and writing about the moon.

First I describe the structure of my university’s teacher education program. Then I presentvignettes of my students’ learning about the moon in seminars for sophomores and juniorsand in a senior research project.

STRUCTURE OF TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM

Overview

At my university, prospective teachers learn liberal arts at a general level during theirfreshman year. During their sophomore year, they learn basic education-oriented subjects.Elementary school teachers, for example, teach all subjects (Japanese, Social Studies,Mathematics, Natural Science, Music, Art, Health & Physical Education, Technology Ed-ucation, and Home Economics) and therefore learn basic education-oriented subjects in allof these disciplines. During junior year, they learn discipline-oriented subjects in the de-partment to which they belong. They also practice teach for a month at an affiliated school.During senior year, they conduct research, create productions or perform concerts accordingto their field of study. They also practice teach for several weeks at an affiliated school.

The undergraduates of the Department of Natural Science include prospective elementary,junior high, and high school teachers. There are five research groups in my department. Fourare natural science-oriented research groups: Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Astronomy,Ecology and Geology. One is an education-oriented research group: Research Group ofScience Education (RGSE).

Research-Oriented Seminars and Senior Project

Sophomores and juniors in the Research Group in Science Education enroll in seminarsto prepare for senior research. My design for these seminars is based upon the construc-tivist perspective (Fensham, Gunstone, & White, 1994), by which I mean that learnersautonomously learn from their own experiences. I view myself as facilitating a “learningcommunity” (McGilly, 1994).

Seniors make oral presentations of their research twice a year, the first while in the processof doing the research and the second after the research project is completed. Examplesof senior research projects include Units of “Bodies of Human and Animals” with thePerspective of Evolution; Spatial Cognition through the Theme of How We Observe theMoon; A Study of Reflection on Collaborative Science Classes: From Learning to Teaching;and An Internet Resource for the Topic of Energy Problems in Environmental Education.Some of the seniors make oral presentations at a conference of the Society of Japan Science

898 SUZUKI

Teaching. This association has many members of school teachers and science educationresearchers at teaching universities in Japan.

References for the seminars include the national curriculum for elementary and juniorhigh school science (Monbusho, 1989), the textbooks used at the affiliated schools (Miura,1995; Ueda, 1996), and materials (e.g. Komori, 1986; Kozai, 1979) brought in by the studentsand myself. In addition, I draw from a variety of sources such as books on children’s ideasabout science (Driver, Guesne, & Tiberghien, 1985; Hori, 1994; Morimoto, 1996; Osborne& Freyberg, 1985), conceptual change (West, 1985), and research on science understandingthrough interpreting concept maps and interviews (White & Gunstone, 1992).

The Japanese national curriculum recommends helping students to be familiar with na-ture, to observe, to do experiments, to solve problems, to love nature, to understand the topicsand phenomena of nature, and to develop scientific perspectives and thinking (Monbusho,1989). The national science curriculum for fifth graders (10–11-years-old), for example,includes investigating changes of the weather, observing the positions of the sun and themoon depending on the time, doing activities to explore problems when investigating, anddeveloping through activities the perspectives and ideas about rules of weather phenomenaand movements in the cosmos.

I designed the sophomore and junior seminars to cultivate the diverse perspectives ofthe prospective teachers. One perspective is “learners,” the second is “teachers,” and thirdis “researchers.” As learners, the prospective teachers become aware of their difficulties inmaking sense of scientific concepts. As teachers, the prospective teachers become aware ofhow to facilitate learners’ thinking. As researchers, the prospective teachers become awareof how learners think about scientific concepts. These perspectives interact with one anotherto enhance learning how to teach and how to do research.

LEARNING ABOUT THE MOON IN A RESEARCH-ORIENTEDSEMINAR FOR SOPHOMORES

Interactions between experiences of teaching and learning are very important. I wantedparticipants in the sophomore seminar to learn about ways people think about scientificconcepts. Also I have found that when prospective teachers try to design instruction aboutany topic, they frequently feel that they do not know anything about the topic and needto learn about it. Therefore I wanted the sophomores to have an experience in learningabout a science topic in depth. This was one of the purposes for engaging them in on-going conversations about the moon. Based on previous research (Suzuki, 1998), I pre-dicted that there would be two barriers for studying the moon. One would be to visualizethe relationship among the sun, earth, and moon in three dimensions. Second would beto realize from where observers were viewing the moon in three dimensions. The stu-dents observed the moon whenever and wherever they liked, reported their observations inclass, and talked together about the moon, especially about why they had seen the moonas they had in their observations. They conducted the conversations themselves, as muchas possible. When they seemed to need tools to assist their thinking about the moon, Iprovided several, such as balls, a light, and a large globe. Sometimes, they made toolsby themselves and used these in the conversations. In addition, they shared informationrelating to astronomy that they collected by themselves. Later in the semester, they de-signed and taught each other lessons about astronomy and reflected upon one another’steaching. Table 1 summarizes the 12 weekly class sessions in which they discussed themoon.

This seminar was designed for students to learn autonomously. To facilitate such learning,I participated in students’ conversations in several ways. I considered this a form of cognitive


TABLE 1On-Going Conversations About the Moon in Sophomore Seminar

10/18: Getting orientedI explained how to observe the moon and what kind of information about the moon wasto be brought to class.

10/25: Sharing observations and considering the perspective from the universeThe students distributed and discussed several observations of the moon. Every studentdrew a diagram with the sun, earth and moon on the blackboard with the perspectivefrom the universe to represent how he/she observed the phase of the moon andexplained it to colleagues.

11/1: Considering the changing height of the moon during one dayThe students distributed and discussed several observations of the moon. Every studentdrew a diagram showing differences in the height of the moon on the blackboard.

11/8: Comparing two observations of the moon on different datesThe students distributed and discussed several observations of the moon. Every studentdrew a diagram on the blackboard to show two different observations of the moon (on11/1 and 11/7), with the sun, earth, moon with the perspective from the universe andexplained it to colleagues.

11/15: Collaboratively designing a thinking toolThe students distributed and discussed several observations of the moon. The studentsdesigned a tool to help them think about the phases of the moon.

12/6: Using a globe and light as a thinking toolSeveral observations of the moon were distributed. Students used the thinking tools(one light, one globe and one ball) which represented the sun, earth and moon to thinkabout how they had observed the moon.

12/13: Using a video cameraStudents used a video camera as the perspective of the observer on the earth. Theyfigured out how the observer stands on the earth in the three-dimensional universe withvigorous discussions.

12/20: Exploring representations of observationsStudents used a video camera as the perspective of the observer on the earth. Theytalked with one another to represent their various observations of the moon with thinkingtools.

1/10: Considering eclipsesStudents watched a tape of an eclipse of the moon. Students talked about representingthe way of making observations of the moon. One would like to make a material whichoverview all of on-going observations of the moon.

1/17: Practice teachingTwo students practice taught. One taught about observing the phases of the moon witha tool which he had made. The students evaluated this experience by talking aboutpedagogy. Other taught about tales about the cosmos.

1/24: Practice teachingThe students evaluated the experience in the second practice teaching in the previousclass by talking about pedagogy. A student practice taught about the moon. She made apicture with a dice for students’ exploring to learn about the moon with her facilitation.The students evaluated this experience by talking about pedagogy.

1/31: Reflecting on conversations about the moonOne student practice taught about the planets. The students evaluated this experienceby talking about pedagogy. Students talked with one another about how the moon wasobserved, based on their observations of the moon with thinking tools to reflect on theirlearning about the moon in this seminar.

900 SUZUKI

apprenticeship (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989) in learning how to talk about science.During the beginning of the course, for example, I introduced the topic and created thecontext within which the students could explore their own thinking. This stage was the“modeling” and “coaching” level, in which I as the instructor constrained students’ thinkingand showed them ways of thinking about the universe. At the first session, for example, Imodeled expert thinking for novices by showing the students how to observe the moon andthe kind of information they were to bring to class. As the sessions progressed, I coachedtheir thinking by discussing specific situations such as comparing two observations of themoon at different times of day or on different days. At the “scaffolding” level, I as theinstructor gave students several hints to help them become aware of knowledge they werelacking and to foster new ways of thinking. Finally, at the “fading” level, I as the instructortried not to talk and listened to the students’ conversations. I present vignettes from thesesessions below. Transcripts in Japanese are available upon request.

Getting Oriented

At the first session, I explained how to observe the moon and what kind of informationabout the moon the students should bring to class. They were to draw the shape of the moonand to note the height (in degrees) above the horizon, the direction (e.g. west), the time,the date, and where they observed (e.g. the athletic ground of the University or the name oftown of the student’s residence). Although I gave explicit directions about what to observe,I expected the students to figure out how to do this.

Finding the Moon

Initially some of the students had trouble finding the moon because they assumed theyshould look for it at night. At the first sharing of the moon observations in the seminar forsophomores, for example, one said, “I can’t report, because I couldn’t see the moon. Duringlast week, I wanted to observe the moon, so I observed the sky around midnight everyday.But I couldn’t see the moon.” “Me too,” another said. “Because, last week, we couldn’t seethe moon around midnight,” one of the others replied. The first two seemed to think themoon could be seen always at night.

Explaining Differences in Height During the Day

At the third session, I asked the students why there were differences in the height of themoon during one day. The height and incline of the lit part of the moon changes during aday and I wanted to let them think about their observations and to explain the relationshipamong the sun, earth, and moon. The students drew diagrams of several positions of themoon above a line as the horizon. A typical example is represented in Figure 3. Theirdrawing tracks the apparent movement of the moon that an observer on the ground seesin the sky. In the drawing, the perspective was from the ground where an observer stands,rather than from the universe. The students did not refer to the relationships among the sun,earth, and moon with three dimensions.

Explaining Differences in Observations for Different Dates

At the fourth session, I asked the students to draw diagrams on the blackboard to showtwo different observations of the moon on different dates and to explain the diagrams totheir colleagues. Sketches of their drawings are shown in Figure 4. They struggled with the


Figure 3. A sketch of a drawing on the blackboard at the third session.

Figure 4. Sketches of drawings on the blackboard at the fourth session.

902 SUZUKI

relationship among the sun, earth, and moon. N. and K. tried to draw the two-dimensionaldiagrams. N. drew the sun on the top of the drawing, the earth in the middle and two differentpositions of the moon around the earth. K. drew the sun on the right side of the earth, andthe rays represented the light of the sun. She drew the two positions of the moon aroundthe earth. In these drawings, the perspective was from the top of the solar system in theuniverse. I. and M. tried to represent three dimensions in their diagrams. I. drew the earthin the middle of the drawing and the sun behind the earth. He drew the two positions of themoon around the earth. M. drew the sun behind the earth, and the movement of the moonaround the earth. M. said that it was hard to draw diagrams on the blackboard to representhow the axis inclines. In response to his comment, I asked all of them to design a tool tobring to the next session to assist their thinking in three dimensions.

Designing Tools for Exploration

After the students distributed and discussed several observations of the moon at the fifthsession, M. explained his ideas about ways to facilitate thinking about the observations ofthe moon in three dimensions. He drew on the blackboard his design for using thinkingtools such as the light, globe, and ball to represent the sun, earth, and moon system fromthe perspective of the universe. He explained how to use the tools; to set the globe, light,and the ball and to turn on the light; the lit portion of the ball represents the shape of themoon. A sketch of his drawing is shown in Figure 5. He explained the use of tools. Afterhe explained his drawings to his colleagues, I said, “This might be useful, if you see fromthe perspective of the universe.” M. said, “We can see in three dimensions.” I continued,“ . . . Next, you should also return to the earth.” I was trying to encourage the students tothink about the moon from both the universe and the earth perspectives.

One of the students came up with the idea of pasting a doll as an observer on the globe.Another suggested using the scope of a small camera as the eyes of the doll. Anothersuggested that the scope of a video camera could be used as the perspective of the observeron the globe. After conversations about designing a thinking tool, I said, “If you try to usethis one by yourselves, you need more information, I think. Please consider what otherinformation you need.” “More information?” M. said. I continued, “Where is this doll? Doyou know that? We are here, in Shiga Prefecture. Well, what about the relative position ofthe earth and sun in this season? It is November. We observe the moon in Shiga Prefecture.Please bring some more information to set this tool to represent your observations.”

At the sixth session, the students used the tools (light, globe, and ball which representedthe sun, earth, and moon) to think about how they had observed the moon. The diameter ofthe globe was about 50 cm. They struggled to set the big globe on the stand and to use theprotractor to incline the axis to 23.4◦. They also discussed how the earth would be inclinedto the sun to represent the season of fall.

Figure 5. A sketch of a drawing on the blackboard at the fifth session.


Designing Ways to Clarify Perspectives

During later sessions, I refrained from joining actively in the conversation. Instead Iparticipated by listening closely to what was being said as the students worked together.During the seventh session, for example, the students generated a vigorous discussion inwhich they invented and designed ways to explore their inquiries about the phases of themoon. The students tried out the tool for thinking that they had invented in an earlier sessionby using a video camera to represent the perspective of the observer on the earth.

First they put the large globe on the desk to represent the earth and set a lamp on anotherdesk to represent the light from the sun. The light of the lab was turned off and the lamp onthe desk was turned on. The students struggled collaboratively to set up the video cameraon the globe and to think about the relationship among the sun, earth, moon as seen fromthe earth. By working with the lamp, globe, and ball, they were themselves seeing theperspective from the universe.

M. moved the ball around the globe to represent the moon moving around the earth.This represents the changing of the relative position of the moon to the earth on differentdates. With much discussion, they set the globe so the video camera was set on Japan in theposition of midnight and considered the moon. K. watched through the video camera as M.moved the ball around the globe. K. was watching the moving ball through the lens of thevideo camera and could see more and more of the portion of the ball that was lit by the lamp.K. was not sure of the changing phase of the moon, because the lit portion of the ball wasnot as bright by the reflected light of the lamp as the moon. The globe (earth) was betweenthe ball (moon), and the lamp (sun). M. moved the ball (moon) gradually into the shadowof the globe to have the ball (moon) become dark. All four started laughing. M. brought upthe ball (moon) over the top of the globe to have all of the ball (moon) become bright. Henoticed that the full moon could not be seen if the ball (moon) would be set behind the globe,opposing to the lamp (sun). He demonstrated the mechanism of an eclipse of the moon.

K. set the video camera at the position of Japan on the globe, vertically to the floor, andnot vertically to a horizontal plane that would be tangent to the globe at the position ofJapan as shown in Figure 6. The lamp (the sun) was set in the front of the paper. The globe

Figure 6. Ways of setting the video camera on the globe.

904 SUZUKI

(the earth) was set on the table in the lab. The line was drawn below the globe in this figureas the floor. The ball (the moon) was set behind the globe. This orientation of the videocamera’s lens did not represent the orientation of an observer who stands at the position ofJapan on the globe. I wanted to have the students reflect upon K.’s way of setting the videocamera on the globe and responded to her questioning of her own action with a question.The students then began to consider the difference between seeing the moon from Japanwhere a vertical person would be inclined perpendicular to the earth, and the view of theball through the video camera when it was placed vertical perpendicular to the floor. Thisdifference affects how the lit part of the ball (moon) inclines to the horizontal plane at theposition of Japan on the globe.

The students discussed this situation with one another until they thought they understood.Then I raised the same issue again. When the students seemed to be confused by myquestions, I clarified what I meant by directing K.’s head in different ways. One was verticalto the floor. The other was parallel to the floor. As the students discussed this further, Icontinued to participate by listening closely without speaking. One of the students leanedher head over to demonstrate. Another moved his hand perpendicular to the globe near themiddle of the globe, where his hand was parallel to the floor. When he moved his handperpendicular to the globe near the top of the globe, his hand was perpendicular to the floor.Throughout the conversation, they made sense of how the observer stands on the earth inthe three-dimensional universe.

The students spent the rest of this lesson simulating how to see the moon from the planeof the earth, when the earth rotates on its own axis, by using the video camera, the globeand the ball. Their innovative collaboration in simulating various ways of viewing the moonfrom the earth helped them to understand the mechanism of the phases of the moon andcultivated their perspectives from both the earth and universe.

On the basis of the above episodes, the students seemed to be deeply engaged in theseissues. They collaboratively learned about the moon. Many times they laughed during theconversations. Throughout the dialogue, the students checked frequently with one another.They seemed to share the atmosphere that everyone can talk with each other honestly.They asked one another a wide variety of questions for various purposes. I interpret suchquestions and comments as being indicative of discourse in which participants are consultingone another as they design innovative ways to understand complex systems. Throughout thediscussion, I intended my questions to create on-going contexts for the students’ thinking,to direct attention to their thinking-assist-tools, and to help them narrow a discussion. Aftermy questions, for example, the students could focus on thinking and talking about how theobserver stands on the earth and views the moon in the three-dimensional solar system.

As learners, the students became aware of their difficulties in understanding and explain-ing to others the mechanism of the phases of the moon. Through discussions such as theone reported here, for example, they became aware of their difficulties in understanding andexplaining to others how the observer stands on the earth and views the moon. As teachers,they became aware of how to facilitate learners’ thinking about the phases of the moonby collaboratively designing and modifying thinking tools during conversations about themoon. As researchers, they became aware of how learners think about scientific conceptsthrough their own experiences as learners. Before they felt contradictions brought by myquestions, they considered themselves understanding about the mechanism of the phases ofthe moon in three-dimensions. However, they could not understand how the observer standson the earth and views the moon in the three-dimensional solar system. Based on theirexperiences of their difficulty in understanding this, they became aware of how learnersthink. This difficulty is also one of two barriers for studying the moon that I predicted onthe basis of the previous research (Suzuki, 1998).


LEARNING ABOUT THE MOON IN A RESEARCH-ORIENTEDSEMINAR FOR JUNIORS

The purpose of the seminar for juniors was to help them explore themes for seniorresearch. In addition to visiting faculty in RGSE to talk about possible senior researchprojects, they presented their tentative ideas and discussed these with one another to shapethese into plans for their senior research projects.

During the first five sessions, several seniors discussed their senior projects and a graduatestudent presented her master’s degree research. The juniors could ask questions about anyaspect of formulating and carrying out such research. Simultaneously, they engaged in on-going conversations about the moon. Moreover, everyone designed some teaching materialsand taught about the moon during a session. They introduced their products in the seminarand evaluated these through discussions with one another. They had already finished practiceteaching at an affiliated elementary school for about one month. Therefore, they werefamiliar with designing materials and instruction and were experienced in participating indiscussions to evaluate these collaboratively.

LEARNING ABOUT THE MOON THROUGH SENIOR RESEARCH

One junior developed a question when he observed the moon and thought about how heviewed the inclining crescent moon during the early morning (Figure 7).

After thinking over his question, he designed materials and a class to teach how theinclining crescent moon is viewed during the early morning in Shiga prefecture. He intro-duced his tentative ideas about these and his colleagues and I provided him with severalcomments. He decided that this topic would be his senior-research theme.

After the course, he did practicing to teach about how the inclining cresent moon isviewed during early morning in Shiga prefecture in one class of my course for sophomoresin 1996. Moreover, he analyzed prospective teachers’ explanations about how the incliningcrescent moon is viewed during the early morning in Shiga prefecture (Suzuki & Yura,1998) with my facilitation. The question asked students to use their ideas to explain theobservation that a crescent moon was observed in the eastern sky at 5 am and in ShigaPrefecture. The participants of this research enrolled in my courses in 1996, Spring. Weconfirmed that it was difficult for prospective teachers to explaine the phase of the moonviewed from the earth and from outside the solar system in three-dimensional solar system.

DISCUSSION

As an instructor of prospective elementary and junior high school teachers, I endeavoredto teach in ways that I hoped they eventually would teach their own students. I considered myapproach to be constructivist (Fensham, Gunstone, & White, 1994). I envisioned myselfas establishing a “community of learners” (McGilly, 1994, p. 18) in which the studentscould generate and investigate issues within a subject area. I wanted them to deepen their

Figure 7. A crescent moon in the question.

906 SUZUKI

own knowledge of a science topic while learning how to facilitate learners’ thinking andbecoming aware of ways that learners may think about scientific concepts.

My students entered the university with the intention of becoming science teachers and Iwas able to work with them in a series of science education courses over several years. Allwere fond of science and planned to become science teachers. I had learned about “cognitiveapprenticeship” (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989) in my graduate studies of cognitivescience and tried to apply this perspective in my courses as a teacher educator. I modeled ex-pert thinking initially, coached the students as they undertook their investigations, providedscaffolding as needed, and faded as they collaboratively designed ways to think togetherabout the three dimensional relationship among the moon, earth, and sun for the variousphases of the moon. The students engaged in active conversations with one another andmyself as the instructor to construct new ways of thinking about the phases of the moon.

Prospective Teachers’ Notions About the Moon

The prospective teachers had some knowledge of the moon. For example, they did notexpress a common confusion that the phases of the moon are caused by the shadow of theearth. However, they had trouble finding the moon because they assumed they should lookfor it at night. They had difficulties explaining the phases of the moon viewed from theearth and from outside the solar system in three-dimensional solar system.

Interpretation in Terms of Japanese Practitioners’ Recommendations

As Japanese practitioners recommend (e.g. Ishiguro, 1991a, 1991b; Takikawa, 1992),every prospective teacher participated in the conversations. I encouraged them to expresstheir own ideas and invited them to build upon their contributions. As a result of consideringone another’s thinking, they created “circles” of discussion in which they laughed with oneanother as they figured things out. I was mostly quiet during the episode presented here,asking a question only to help them to focus their thinking.

Interpretation in Terms of the Hypothesis---Experiment--- Instruction Method

This case study demonstrates an approach to facilitating discussions in which studentstake increasing responsibility for reconstructing their ideas. The students generated waysto explore their own questions, for example, such as using a video camera placed on a largeglobe to simulate watching the moon from the earth. My questions, however, got them startedthinking about the way setting the video camera on the globe represented an observer’sviewing of the moon on earth. I was responding within a context that the students hadthemselves developed. This contrasts with the hypothesis–experiment– instruction methodin which problems and answer alternatives are prepared before class by the instructor. Withthe hypothesis–experiment– instruction method, there are many chances for students toreflect on their own ideas through discussions, explanation, questioning, and answering toother colleagues. The teacher, however, retains responsibility for orchestrating the processand designing the experimental demonstration.

Interpretation in Terms of the Group Compositionin Collaborative Learning

In the seminar for sophomores, the group composition of participants was heterogeneousin terms of understanding the moon. Two of four tended to be less familiar with the moon than


were the other participants. I observed situations in which these two came up with questionsand seemed to experience cognitive conflicts in the conversations. In those cases, the othertwo answered their questions and explained their own ideas. However, the less persuasivestudents, who did not understand the sun–earth–moon system very much, did not hesitateto express their ideas. Everyone talked with one another in very animated discussions. Onereason may be that they were all members of the Research Group in Science Education.They had already had similar experiences in other courses at the university.

Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Learning

This case study is an example of continuing conversations about scientific phenomenawith the intent of enhancing prospective teachers’ science knowledge and knowledge aboutthe nature of science. What did the prospective teachers perceive themselves as learning?Many seemed to value the experience of making observations and developing explanations.In reflecting upon the seminar, one wrote,

I had the first experience to think about the moon deeply in the seminar for juniors, fallsemester when I was a junior. The moon had been very close to me. I was unconscious of themoon . . . Gathering information, thinking, and talking about the moon with thinking-assist-tools, had me learn a lot about the moon. For example, I learned the crescent moon cannot beseen at midnight, the full moon cannot be seen at noon, the ways of explanations of phasesof the moon, and so on. I’d observed the moon in this course. Through my observations, Icould see whether my prediction of the phases of the moon with the thinking-assist-toolswould be right and that tools have limitations to explain observations.

My intent was that the prospective teachers would increase their science knowledge whileexperiencing the approach to science pedagogy that I was advocating in my seminars.

Some of the prospective teachers chose to continue their investigations of learning aboutthe moon. When the seminar for juniors concluded, one of the participants chose to doresearch about the moon for his senior research project. After the course, he analyzedprospective teachers’ explanations about how the inclining crescent moon is viewed duringthe early morning in Shiga prefecture (Suzuki & Yura, 1998) with my facilitation.

Limitations

This case study is an example of research conducted by an instructor in the act of teachingand in subsequent reflections upon data collected by taping classes, copying students work,and writing journals (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993). This is a self-study and as such islimited by my perceptions of what was occurring, how, and why. The data presented andinterpreted here are only a small sample of the data collected. I selected episodes to examinethat seemed to demonstrate the kinds of discussions that I valued. I chose to focus on episodesin which students talked with one another in the process of reconstructing their ideas. Giventhe same corpus of data, other researchers may have chosen other foci of interest and otherepisodes for detailed analysis.

Educational Significance

This case study contributes to the literature on preparation of teachers by instructors whovalue vigorous discussions. It provides a specific example of ways that teacher educators canchoose to provide opportunities for prospective teachers to talk with one another about what

908 SUZUKI

they think. In Japan, science classes that emphasize discussions are common in elementaryschools (Morimoto, 1996) but rare in junior high and high schools. In higher education, it ishard to find a case of learning science through discussions. At colleges or universities, thereare many science classes taught by traditional methods in which instructors explain aboutscience and students listen. The prospective teachers in my seminars had completed such acourse in astronomy that included a class in which they had observed the stars. However,they had not directly observed the moon over many weeks nor engaged in conversationsin which they tried to explain what they had seen. This indicates the importance of suchexperiences for prospective teachers in order to deepen their knowledge of science contentand pedagogy.

According to Trelfa (1998), for example, dislike of mathematics and science amongstudents is a problem in Japan. One cause may be students’ experiences with scienceteachers who deliver information at a high rate. I want the prospective teachers’ experiencesas learners in my courses to help them become teachers who understand how to listen closelyto students and how to engage students in extended inquiries. My hope is that experiencinghow complicated it is to understand the mechanism of the phases of the moon may help thembecome more willing to explore learners’ ideas about space and their location within thecosmos. These moon explorations may help them to understand how difficult understandingthe nature of science is and how to work with learners to reconstruct ideas. I believe thatmany also may have learned that inquiring about natural phenomena can be exhilaratingand that they can convey this enthusiasm to their own students.

Directions for Future Research

I plan to continue conducting research in the context of my own teaching practices bydocumenting what I am doing and why. In particular, I plan to trace ways of students’ learningabout science, including the phases of the moon, in the context of using an electronic bulletinboard system.

The author thanks Emily van Zee, University of Maryland at College Park, for her assistance inpreparing the manuscript.

REFERENCES

Abell, S., Martini, M., & George, M. (2001). That’s what scientists have to do: Preservice elementaryteachers’ conceptions of the nature of science during a moon investigation. International Journalof Science Education, 23, 1095–1109.

Atwood, R. K., & Atwood, V. A. (1997). Effects of instruction on preservice elementary teachers’conceptions of the causes of night and day and the seasons. Journal of Science Teacher Education,8(1), 1–13.

Baxter, J. (1989). Children’s understanding of familiar astronomical events. International Journal ofScience Education, 11, 502–513.

Bisard, W. J., Aron, R. H., Francek, M. A., & Nelson, B. S. (1994). Assessing selected physicalscience and earth science misconceptions of middle school through university preservice teachers.Journal of College Science Teaching, 24, 38–42.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craftsof reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction:Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.


Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.). (1985). Children’s Ideas in Science. Philadelphia:Open University Press. (Japanese translator: Uchida, M. (1993). Tokyo: Toyokan-Syuppansya.)

Duckworth, E. (1987). The having of wonderful ideas and other essays on teaching and learning. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Elementary Science Study (1968). Where is the moon? [Prepared by D. Ford] New York: WebsterDivision, McGraw-Hill.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbookof research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.

Fensham, P., Gunstone, R., & White, R. (1994). The content of science: A constructivist approach toits teaching and learning. London: Falmer Press.

Gallagher, J. J. (Ed.). (1991). Interpretative Research in Science Education. National Association forResearch in Science Teaching Monograph #4. Manhattan, Kansas: Kansas State University.

Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity. InL. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & D. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition(pp. 331–348). Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.

Hori, T. (1994). What is the pedagogy of science education? (in Japanese) Tokyo: Toyohkan-Shuppan.Ishiguro, O. (1991a). Kyoiku-shinsho 69: Discussion classes: Basic (in Japanese). Tokyo: Meiji-

Tosho.Ishiguro, O. (1991b). Kyoiku-gijyutsu-bunko 8: Technology of discussion classes (in Japanese).

Tokyo: Meiji-Tosho.Itakura, K. (1967). Instruction and learning of concept “force” in static based on Kasetsu-Jikken-Jigyo

(Hypothesis–experiment– instruction): A new method of science teaching. Bulletin of NationalInstitute for Educational Research, 52, 1–121.

Jones, B. L., Lynch, P. P., & Reesink, C. (1987). Children’s conceptions of the earth, sun and moon.International Journal of Science Education, 9, 43–53.

Klein, C. A. (1982). Children’s concepts of the earth and the sun: A cross cultural study. ScienceEducation, 65, 95–107.

Komori, N. (1986). Exploring the moon (in Japanese). Tokyo: Iwasaki-shoten.Kozai, Y. (1979). The moon and asteroids (in Japanese). Tokyo: Kohsei-sya.McDermott, L. (1996). Physics by inquiry. New York: Wiley.McGilly, K. (Ed.). (1994). Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Miura, N. (1995). New science (For thrid–sixth grades) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Tokyo Shoseki.Monbusho (Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture) (1989). Shogakkoh Gakusyu Shi-

doh Yoryo (National Curriculum for the Elementary Schools). Tokyo: Mongusho Insatsu Kyoku(Publication Bureau of Ministry of Education).

Morimoto, S. (Ed.). (1996). New science classes based on children’s communication activities (inJapanese). Tokyo: Toyokan-Shuppan.

Nussbaum, J. (1979). Children’s conceptions of the earth as a cosmic body: A cross age study. ScienceEducation, 63, 83–93.

Nussbaum, J. (1985). The earth as a cosmic body. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.),Children’s ideas in science (pp. 170–192). Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children’s science.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. (Japanese translator: Morimoto, S. & Hori, T. (1988). Tokyo:Toyokan-Syuppansya.

Philips, W. C. (1991). Earth science misconceptions. The Science Teacher, 58, 21–23.Schoon, K. J. (1992). Students’ alternative conceptions of earth and space. Journal of Geological

Education, 40, 209–214.Sharp, J. G. (1996). Children’s astronomical beliefs: A preliminary study of Year 6 children in south-

west England. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 685–712.Sneider, C. (1986). Earth, moon, and stars: Teacher’s guide. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Hall of Science,

University of California.Sneider, C., & Poulos, S. (1983). Children’s cosmographies: Understanding the earth’s shape and

gravity. Science Education, 67, 205–221.

910 SUZUKI

Stahly, L. L., Krockover, G. H., & Shepardson, D. P. (1999). Third grade students’ ideas about thelunar phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 159–177.

Suzuki, M. (2001). A study of the influence of individuals on collaborative learning about the solarsystem, Journal of Science Education in Japan, 25(3), 145–166.

Suzuki, M. (1998). Japanese children’s ideas of the solar system. Journal of Science Education inJapan, 22(3), 130–141.

Suzuki, M., & van Zee, E. H. (April, 1998). Conversations about the moon with future elementaryschool teachers in Japan and the United States: Two case studies. Paper presented at the AmericanEducational Research Association annual meeting, San Diego, CA.

Suzuki, M., & Yura, Y. (1998). The undergraduate students concepts of the sun, earth and moon. Paperpresented at the Society of Japan Science Teaching annual meeting, Nagasaki, Japan.

Takikawa, Y. (1992). Discussing about physics: Challenging in the unknown world (in Japanese). In J.Watanabe & M. Wada (Eds.), NHK books 631: Classrooms with Kikoku-sei: Classes are changingand schools are changing (in Japanese) (pp. 187–208). Tokyo: Nihon-Hohsoh-shuppan-Kyokai.

Trelfa, D. (1998). The development and implementation of education standards in Japan. In G.LeTendre (Ed.), The educational system in Japan: Case study findings. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.

Ueda, M. (1996). New science (for junior high schools) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Tokyo-Shoseki.van Zee, E. H. (2000). Analysis of a student-generated inquiry discussion. International Journal of

Science Education, 22, 115–142.Vosniadou, A., & Brewer, W. F. (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Psychology,

18, 123–183.West, L. H. T. (Ed.). (1985). Cognitive structure and conceptual change. (Japanese translator: Shindoh,

E. (1994)). Tokyo: Tohyohkan-Syuppansya.White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding (Japanese translators: Nakayama, H. &

Inagaki, S. (1995)). Tokyo: Tohyohkan-Syuppansya.

conversations about the moon with prospective teachers in japan

Documents