2026-07-31 Chat & Summary

Participants (partial list):

1. Dário Fonseca - Hemispherium @ Exploratório - Coimbra, Portugal

2. Mary Holt, Longway Planetarium, Flint Michigan, though today I'm in Chadds Ford PA!

3. Jeannette Lawler, Brigham Young University Planetarium

4. Alan Gould, Berkeley California USA

5. Mark Brown - Peterson Planetarium Emporia State University - Kansas, and NASA Solar System Ambassador

6. Amy Truksa, Whittenberger Planetarium at The College of Idaho, Caldwell, ID, USA

7. Karl von Ahnen. Santa Cruz Mountains, California

8. Jon Elvert

9. Ken Brandt

10. Amie Gallagher

11. Andy Kreyche

12. Reza Morin-Dayani

13. Rosemary Walling

[About recap of Planetarium Educators' Zoom Workshop module 1] Mary Holt: That one I think was a little bit awkward to do online, I think, if I'm remembering right

[About study of high school students in Boston area] Mary Holt: What year was the study, Alan?  [Sometime in the 1990s]

Amie Gallagher: Ah, "A Private Universe!"

Alan: Imagine that you lived thousands of years ago and believe in a flat Earth model. How would you explain how the Sun, after setting in the west, gets back to the east where it rises the next day.

Mary Holt: We don't have to imagine, people still believe that...lol

JeannetteLawler: It moves in a circle around the disk and we can't see it when it's behind the mountains

Question 1: Why is the Earth flat in picture A and round in picture B?

Mark Brown, Rosemary Walling, Amie Gallagher, Amy Truksa, Ken Brandt, Dário Fonseca, Andy Kreyche, Reza Morin-Dayani: D

Question 2. Pretend that the Earth is glass and you can look through it, Which way would you look to see faraway places like China and India

Reza Morin-Dayani, Mark Brown, Amy Truksa, Rosemary Walling, Amie Gallagher, Dário Fonseca, Andy Kreyche, Karl von Ahnen: D

00:58:02 Reza Morin-Dayani: Earthward

Question 3: Drawing shows enlarged people dropping rocks at various places around the Earth. What happens to the rocks after the people let go of them?

Ken Brandt: falls straight down relative to the person dropping it
Amie Gallagher: From each hand down toward the center of the Earth.
lisapace1: toward the center earth
Andy Kreyche: Toward the center of the Earth.
Karl von Ahnen: Moves toward center of the Earth
Amy Truksa: The rocks would land on the ground "below" their hand--draw a line to the ground closest to their hand

Question 4: Tunnel through the Earth with person at the North Pole, dropping a rock. Draw a line showing the entire path of a dropped rock.

Amie Gallagher: I was given all these questions during my first week working in a planetarium.

Moons of Mars Problem:

Alan Gould: What is the phase of Deimos as seen by the person standing on Mars?
Mark Brown, Ken Brandt, Amie Gallagher, Dário Fonseca, Andy Kreyche, Amy Truksa: A

Alan Gould: What is the phase of Phobos as seen by the person standing on Mars?
Ken Brandt, Mark Brown: D
Reza Morin-Dayani: a
Rosemary Walling, Amie Gallagher, Dário Fonseca, lisapace1, Amy Truksa, Andy Kreyche: B

Karl von Ahnen: ups got it backwards

Reza Morin-Dayani: Internal model

[About reversal of quarter phase] JeannetteLawler: Naw, they're just from the Southern hemisphere :)

01:13:17 JeannetteLawler: If you're standing on the North pole, you'd see the light side on your left.

01:13:22 Amy Truksa: The person on Mars sees the right-hand side of the moon as shaded. Or, they can see the left-hand side of the moon.

01:14:25 Ken Brandt: his own...

01:16:06 Rosemary Walling: If you have not already done so, please sign in by adding your name and where you are from. Thank you!

01:16:32 Rosemary Walling: Two galaxies

01:16:57 Andy Kreyche: Andy Kreyche - Santa Cruz, California

01:18:17 Amy Truksa: But not all of us...

01:18:28 Dário Fonseca: making people more confused: in soccer, the left forward faces the right defender... on both sides of the field!

01:19:23 Rosemary Walling: Moon Phase Diagram

01:19:44 Amie Gallagher: Beyond "Formal" level of reasoning.

01:19:45 Ken Brandt: formal

01:21:44 Amy Truksa: It looks like the moon goes through all its phases in one 24-hr period--the phase depends on what time of day it is

01:22:03 Amie Gallagher: Reacted to "It looks like the moon goes through all its phases in one 24-hr period--the phase depends on what time of day it is" with 👍

01:22:06 lisapace1: Reacted to "It looks like the moon goes through all its phases in one 24-hr period--the phase depends on what time of day it is" with 👍

01:25:41 Dário Fonseca: in most cartoons, artists use the Moon to show it's night time

01:26:43 Rosemary Walling: Explanation of Phases

01:30:22 Rosemary Walling: More Explanations

01:35:24 Rosemary Walling: More Wizards of Id

01:37:27 Rosemary Walling: D. Classification Skills

01:43:05 Rosemary Walling: E. Teaching Approaches

01:53:57 Amie Gallagher: I love doing the Moons of the Solar System show.

01:54:21 Rosemary Walling: If you have not already done so, please sign in by adding your name and where you are from. Thank you.

01:54:33 Amie Gallagher: Thanks Alan.

01:54:33 Reza Morin-Dayani: Mahalo nui loa!

01:54:36 lisapace1: Lisa Pace, Southern Utah University mobile planetarium, Cedar City, Utah, very informative, thank you

01:54:43 Amy Truksa: Thank you, Alan!!

01:54:54 Alan Gould: Alan Gould <agould@berkeley.edu>

Planetarium Activities for Successful Shows:

[has Moons of the Solar System show]

www.ips-planetarium.org/pass

gss.lawrencehallofscience.org/planetariums

pass.lawrencehallofscience.org

Planetarium Educators Workshop Guide:

https://www.ips-planetarium.org/pass#1

Slides:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/15ZMOr5jo2QCr22xuptHlFpug1as5XzD6clIMfef79kY/

01:55:44 Rosemary Walling: Find recordings and seminar descriptions here:

01:55:45 Rosemary Walling: https://www.ppadomes.org/

https://www.youtube.com/@ppadomes/videos

02:01:24 Jon Elvert: Jon Elvert, Richmomd, Virginia

02:02:34 Amy Truksa: We mentioned light pollution and an audience member said the show was good until we got political...

02:02:52 Andy Kreyche: Replying to "We mentioned light pollution and an audience member said the show was good until we got political..."

Ouch.

02:06:42 Amy Truksa: Thanks, again!

Key Takeaways

• This was Module 4 of the Planetarium Educators Workshop series, titled "How the Audience Sees It," facilitated by Alan, hosted by Rosemary Walling (PPA).

• The session explored how planetarium audiences approach astronomy concepts using egocentric, concrete, and formal levels of reasoning, based on Piagetian developmental theory.

• Students and general audiences commonly hold misconceptions about basic astronomy topics such as Earth's shape, moon phases, and seasons.

• Concrete experiences and physical models (e.g., moon balls, 3D galaxy models, coins) are highly effective tools for advancing audience understanding, even for formal-level reasoners.

• Presenters should assess audience prior knowledge before teaching, use questions to initiate interaction, and adjust their approach based on observed reasoning levels.

• It is unrealistic to expect complete conceptual change in a single session; incremental progress toward scientific understanding is a valid and worthwhile goal.

Overview of Workshop Series and Recap of Previous Modules

Alan provided a brief overview of the seven-module Planetarium Educators Workshop Guide and recapped the content of Modules 1–3.

• Details

  • Alan: The workshop guide is IPS Special Report Number 10, available on the IPS website. Modules covered include: Communication (Module 1), A Framework for Examining Planetariums (Module 2), Organization Patterns (Module 3), How the Audience Sees It (Module 4, current session), Questioning Strategies (Module 5), and two additional modules never yet done virtually (Modules 6 and 7).

  • Alan: Recapped Module 1 (Communication) — a drawing game illustrating that interactive presentations are more effective than one-way lectures.

  • Alan: Recapped Module 2 — examining planetarium shows through the lens of topic/subject, student/audience, and instructor/presenter.

  • Alan: Recapped Module 3 — organizational patterns including didactic (lecture), small groups with tasks, individual tasks, informal discussions, group meetings, and Socratic questioning.

  • Amie Gallagher and Karl von Ahnen: Acknowledged they had attended earlier modules but could not recall specific details.

• Conclusion

  • The current session (Module 4) focuses on how audiences perceive and process astronomy content.

  • Principles discussed apply to both live interactive programs and pre-recorded planetarium shows.

Student Prior Knowledge and Misconceptions in Astronomy

Alan presented data from a study of high school students in the Boston area to illustrate common gaps in astronomy knowledge.

• Details

  • Alan: Only 52% of students correctly answered that it takes one year for Earth to orbit the Sun; 30% knew the Moon takes about a month to orbit Earth; only 10% knew the Moon rotates on its axis once a month.

  • Alan: 62% of students believed moon phases were caused by shadows of the Earth or Sun; only 36% correctly understood phases result from the Moon's orbit around Earth.

  • Alan: 43% of students associated seasons with Earth's axial tilt, but interviews revealed a common misconception that Earth is closer to the Sun in summer.

  • Ken Brandt: Asked whether the study was conducted in a planetarium context; Alan clarified it was classroom-based but directly relevant to planetarium practice.

• Conclusion

  • Audiences frequently arrive with significant misconceptions about fundamental astronomy concepts.

  • Presenters should assess prior knowledge at the outset and build from what audiences already believe.

Constructivist Learning: Building on Prior Knowledge

Alan discussed the constructivist principle that learners build new understanding from existing knowledge frameworks.

• Details

  • Alan: Meaning is constructed from what learners already know combined with new experiences; presenters should invite audiences to share their ideas at the start of a program.

  • Alan: Sharing ideas helps presenters gauge audience understanding and helps learners recognize that multiple viewpoints exist.

  • Alan: Asking questions is a recurring and effective strategy for initiating audience engagement, applicable even in large planetariums.

  • Alan: Reasoning abilities develop at different rates, largely (but not exclusively) dependent on age.

• Conclusion

  • Beginning a session by eliciting audience ideas is a best practice for both assessment and engagement.

  • Questioning is a primary tool for fostering interaction.

Student Theories About the Shape of the Earth

Alan explored how learners at different developmental stages conceptualize Earth's shape, drawing on research by Vosniadou and Brewer.

• Details

  • Alan: When asked if Earth is round, many people say yes but hold varying mental models — a flat circular island, a planet visible from space, a ball with a flat interior, or a ball from which people on the bottom would fall off.

  • Alan: Research by Stella Vosniadou and William Brewer found: first graders typically conceive of Earth as a flat disk or rectangle; third graders construct "synthetic models" blending flat-Earth beliefs with teacher instruction (e.g., two Earths — one flat to live on, one spherical in the sky); by fifth grade, approximately half of students hold more scientifically accurate mental models.

  • Alan: The GEMS guide "Earth, Moon, and Stars" (derived from Lawrence Hall of Science planetarium shows) included activities such as imagining flat-Earth cosmologies, a questionnaire on Earth's shape and gravity, observing moon phases, modeling the Sun-Earth-Moon system, and identifying constellations.

• Conclusion

  • Students do not simply lack knowledge — they hold active, internally consistent theories that must be acknowledged and addressed.

  • Conceptual change is gradual and requires targeted instructional strategies.

Questionnaire Activity: Earth's Shape and Gravity

Alan walked participants through a questionnaire used to assess student understanding of Earth's shape and gravity, with interactive participation.

• Details

  • Alan: Presented a question asking participants to explain why Earth looks flat in one image and round in another. Most participants correctly identified that Earth looks flat because we only see a small part of its surface.

  • Alan: Asked participants which direction one would look through a glass Earth to see people in China or India. Participants correctly identified the downward direction (through the Earth's interior).

  • Alan: Presented a diagram of people standing at various points on Earth's surface, each holding a rock, and asked what would happen when the rocks are released.

  • Amie Gallagher: Correctly stated that rocks would fall toward the center of the Earth from each person's perspective.

  • Alan: Showed examples of student drawings illustrating misconceptions — rocks falling to Earth's center and staying (Aristotelian model), rocks falling "down" regardless of position (frame-of-reference confusion).

  • Alan: Presented the tunnel-through-Earth question; Ken Brandt described the rock oscillating and eventually coming to rest at the center due to friction; Alan confirmed this as scientifically reasonable.

  • Alan: Showed student drawings including one where the rock goes straight through and bounces back, one where it stops at the center (Aristotelian), and one where it "splats" on the other side.

• Conclusion

  • Student drawings reveal a range of mental models, from Aristotelian to near-scientific.

  • A rubric for assessing levels of understanding about Earth's shape and gravity is available in the Planetarium Educators Workshop Guide.

Frames of Reference: Piagetian Levels of Reasoning

Alan introduced Piaget's framework of egocentric, concrete, and formal reasoning as applied to astronomy education, using three examples.

• Details

  • Alan: Defined three levels — egocentric (can only imagine one's own point of view), concrete (can imagine another viewpoint after a concrete experience), and formal (can freely imagine multiple points of view).

  • Alan: Clarified that "egocentric" in Piaget's terminology does not imply selfishness but describes a developmental stage of reasoning.

• Martian Moon Problem (Phobos and Deimos):

  • Alan: Presented a diagram of Mars with its two moons and asked participants to identify the phase of each moon as seen from the Martian surface.

  • Participants: Correctly identified Deimos's phase easily; Phobos required more reasoning (answer: B, third quarter as seen from Mars).

  • Jon Bell: Connected the difficulty to Piaget's formal operations — the ability to mentally step off the planet and adopt another perspective.

  • Alan: Showed results from a college student study — students who answered correctly described imagining themselves on Mars's surface; students who answered incorrectly (D) could not project themselves into the Martian frame of reference.

  • Ken Brandt: Initially confused about why D was wrong; Alan clarified by asking which side of Phobos was lit as seen from the Martian surface (a left-right orientation problem).

  • Alan: Described a concrete activity where pairs of students observe a "moon" from different positions around a light source, draw what they see, then swap positions — helping them experience different frames of reference directly.

• Two Views of Spiral Galaxies:

  • Alan: Presented two images of spiral galaxies — one face-on, one edge-on — and asked for strategies to help a concrete-level learner understand they are the same type of object viewed from different angles.

  • Ken Brandt: Suggested using a 3D model and rotating it.

  • Jon Bell: Suggested using digital visualization software to rotate the galaxy model interactively.

  • Reza: Suggested using a coin as a simple, accessible model — showing it face-on and edge-on.

  • Karl von Ahnen: Noted that modern digital planetariums can fly around objects and change perspective in real time.

  • Alan Gould: Suggested using a Frisbee for its size and visibility.

  • Jon Bell: Suggested a pizza as an alternative prop.

  • Alan: Noted that using parts of one's own body (e.g., a hand) as a model is also effective and always available.

• Moon Phase Diagram:

  • Alan: Presented a standard moon phase diagram (inner orbital view combined with outer egocentric phase views) and asked what level of reasoning is required to understand it.

  • Karl von Ahnen: Recalled being confused by the diagram as a child until understanding the dual perspective it represents.

  • Alan Gould: Assessed it as college-level, requiring formal reasoning, particularly due to left-right orientation and the direction the observer is facing.

  • Alan: Confirmed formal-level reasoning is required; noted that even formal reasoners benefit from concrete experiences when working with this diagram.

  • Jon Bell: Pointed out that the diagram encodes additional information about time of day based on the observer's position relative to the terminator.

  • Ken Brandt: Noted that the diagram's depiction of sunlight as coming from a nearby source (rather than parallel rays from a distant sun) is misleading.

  • Alan Gould: Added that the concept of parallel rays from a distant source is itself difficult for students.

  • Andy: Noted that the human figure on the diagram adds confusion due to scale issues.

  • Alan: Acknowledged the diagram is complex but becomes clear once the dual-perspective structure is understood.

• Conclusion

  • Frames of reference problems require formal-level reasoning; many students and adults operate at egocentric or concrete levels.

  • Concrete activities (physical models, role-playing positions) can help learners progress toward formal reasoning.

  • Presenters should ask questions to gauge audience reasoning level and adjust accordingly.

Scientific Explanations at Different Reasoning Levels

Alan described how the three Piagetian levels manifest in students' scientific explanations, using role-played interview excerpts.

• Details

  • Alan: At the egocentric level, learners attribute motives and human agency to inanimate objects (e.g., the sun "turns off" at night, clouds cover the moon).

  • Alan: At the concrete level, learners use more complex relationships and can revise explanations based on new observations.

  • Alan: At the formal level, learners can extend explanations to predict new observations and compare competing explanations.

• Imagining Flat-Earth Cosmologies:

  • Alan: Asked participants to imagine they believed the Earth was flat and explain how the Sun returns to the east each morning.

  • Karl von Ahnen: Suggested the Sun "turns off and sneaks back."

  • Amie Gallagher: Suggested the Sun goes through a door, runs around the building, and enters through another door.

  • Alan Gould: Suggested ancient cultures used a birth-and-death cycle metaphor for sunset and sunrise.

  • Amy: Shared that her young son believed the Sun recharged overnight by absorbing light from Earth's artificial lights — an example of attributing human agency to natural phenomena.

  • Alan: Noted that attributing human purpose to natural phenomena is characteristic of egocentric-level reasoning in young children.

• Role-Played Student Interviews on Moon Phases:

  • Joe (8 years old, read by Dario, interviewed by Amy): Believed the moon "eats itself" and puts itself back together — egocentric level.

  • Tina (read by Amie Gallagher, interviewed by Ken Brandt): Initially believed another planet or the Earth's shadow covers the moon; then reasoned that the shadow must be curved because both Earth and Moon are round — transitional reasoning between egocentric and concrete, with a partially correct insight about eclipses.

  • Derek (9 years old, read by Andy, interviewed by Amy): Believed clouds cover the moon for a month at a time — egocentric level; Jon Bell connected this to the film "A Private Universe."

  • Herbert (read by Jon Elvert, interviewed by Alan Gould): Offered a mixed explanation involving fog/mist and position changes, but correctly identified the Sun's position relative to a crescent moon — transitional between concrete and formal reasoning; Ken Brandt noted Herbert was incorporating an old misconception into a partially correct new framework.

• Conclusion

  • Students hold active theories at all levels; these theories should be elicited and used as starting points for instruction.

  • Reasoning levels are not rigid categories — learners often show mixed reasoning across a single explanation.

  • Concrete models and experiences can help learners at the concrete level progress toward formal reasoning.

Classification Skills at Different Reasoning Levels

Alan discussed how learners classify astronomical objects (using galaxies as an example) at different Piagetian levels.

• Details

  • Alan: At the egocentric level, learners notice similarities and differences but cannot classify in complex ways.

  • Alan: At the concrete level, learners can classify by a single trait and arrange objects along a continuum.

  • Alan: At the formal level, learners can construct and rearrange hierarchies fluently.

  • Alan: Presented four student galaxy classification examples:

    • Student 1: Divided galaxies into spirals (face-on or edge-on) and non-spirals (elliptical or irregular) — approaching concrete/formal boundary.

    • Student 2: Separated spirals from non-spirals and described non-spirals as skinny, egg-shaped, or rounded — basic concrete level.

    • Student 3: Arranged galaxies from "nicely shaped" to "more squiggly" — possibly concrete (continuum), though Alan noted this may be generous.

    • Student 4: Described galaxies as "round," "longish," or "has arms" — egocentric/pre-operational level.

  • Jon Bell: Noted that recognizing face-on and edge-on spirals as the same object viewed from different angles represents a move toward formal reasoning.

• Conclusion

  • Classification tasks reveal reasoning levels and can be used diagnostically by planetarium presenters.

  • Progression across levels is gradual and non-linear.

Moon Ball Activity as a Concrete Learning Experience

Alan demonstrated and discussed the Moon Ball activity as an effective concrete model for teaching moon phases.

• Details

  • Alan: Described the Moon Ball activity (from the GEMS "Earth, Moon, and Stars" guide, derived from the Lawrence Hall of Science planetarium show "Moons of the Solar System") — each student holds a ball representing the Moon while a single light source represents the Sun; by rotating, students observe phase changes from their own egocentric perspective.

  • Alan: Demonstrated the activity live on camera using a flashlight and a ball, rotating on a swivel chair; participants confirmed the phase appeared to change.

  • Alan: Noted the activity is most effective in a darkened planetarium with a single bright light source.

  • Alan: Emphasized that each person's egocentric view of their own moon ball is the pedagogical strength of the activity.

  • Ken Brandt: Described an outdoor modification using the actual Sun as the light source, with the student's head representing Earth; when the Moon is at quarter phase, the student's shadow points away from the Moon, demonstrating that Earth's shadow is not responsible for phases.

  • Andy: Described using the ASP activity with non-standard moon phase images — having students order them before and after instruction to measure conceptual change; noted doing this recently at a summer camp.

  • Jon Elvert: Suggested asking students to determine the time of day or night from a series of moon phase images.

  • Andy: Added that asking students whether they placed moon images consistently (using visible mare features as orientation cues) is another frame-of-reference assessment.

  • Alan: Connected this consistency check back to the frame-of-reference theme of the workshop.

• Conclusion

  • The Moon Ball activity is a highly effective concrete experience for teaching moon phases at multiple audience levels.

  • Outdoor versions using the Sun and pre/post ordering activities extend the pedagogical value.

  • Observing moon phases over time in the planetarium (using its time-machine capability) should precede the model activity.

Overall Workshop Takeaways and Pedagogical Recommendations

Alan summarized the key pedagogical principles from the session.

• Details

  • Alan: Many people approach astronomy problems with concrete or egocentric reasoning; presenters must recognize and start from the audience's actual reasoning level.

  • Alan: Some topics can be understood at concrete or egocentric levels; others require formal reasoning — topic selection should match audience level.

  • Alan: If a presenter discovers they are operating at the wrong level, they should switch strategies.

  • Alan: It is unrealistic to expect complete conceptual change in a single session; incremental progress is a valid and worthwhile goal.

  • Alan: Homework challenge (ungraded): Design a school planetarium, classroom, or outdoor experience for 1st graders, 5th graders, and 10th graders that progressively builds toward a formal-level explanation of the seasons by high school.

• Conclusion

  • Presenters should elicit prior knowledge, use questions to engage audiences, select topics appropriate to audience reasoning level, and use concrete models to scaffold toward formal reasoning.

  • Partial conceptual progress is a realistic and positive outcome.

Discussion: Trust in Science and the Role of the Planetarium

A post-presentation discussion emerged around whether students trust the planetarium as a reliable source of scientific information.

• Details

  • Alan Gould: Noted that many students, especially younger ones in cloudy or high-latitude locations, have limited direct astronomical observations; the planetarium can provide a broader set of simulated observations before introducing physical explanations.

  • Alan Gould: Raised the concern that students must first trust the planetarium as an accurate representation of physical reality, since digital simulations can depict anything.

  • Alan: Reflected that this connects to a broader societal issue of declining trust in science.

  • Jon Elvert: Noted that students may go home and have their planetarium learning contradicted by parents, creating conflicting input.

  • Andy: Observed that information is also distorted through retelling (like a game of telephone), and that misconceptions may need to be addressed again in future visits.

  • Alan: Argued that hands-on models give students a personal experiential anchor that can persist even against parental misconceptions.

  • Andy: Raised the issue of Northern Hemisphere and mid-latitude bias in astronomy education content.

  • Alan Gould: Agreed and noted that the planetarium's ability to simulate different latitudes and times can help students experience a wider range of astronomical phenomena.

  • Alan: Highlighted the classic activity of predicting where the Sun will set given where it rose, noting it is particularly striking at high latitudes like Rosemary's location.

  • Andy: Referenced the solar motion demonstrator (invented by Joe Snyder at Oberlin College) as a tool that works effectively across all latitudes.

  • Alan: Noted the solar motion demonstrator is used at the Lawrence Hall of Science solar calendar and may be included in the PASS (Planetarium Activities for Successful Shows) classroom activities section.

• Conclusion

  • Building student trust in the planetarium as a scientifically accurate tool is a prerequisite for effective learning.

  • The planetarium's unique ability to simulate different times, locations, and latitudes is a powerful pedagogical asset.

  • Hands-on models provide durable learning anchors that can help students maintain scientific understanding despite conflicting external input.

Action Items

• Alan

  • Post resource links in the chat, including URLs for the Planetarium Educators Workshop Guide (IPS Special Report Number 10), Planetarium Activities for Successful Shows (PASS), and the slides used in the session.

  • Verify whether the solar motion demonstrator activity (by Joe Snyder, Oberlin College) is included in the PASS classroom activities section.

  • Invite participants to email him with responses to the homework challenge: designing a multi-grade (1st, 5th, and 10th grade) planetarium/classroom/outdoor experience to build toward a formal-level explanation of the seasons.

• Alan Gould (Rosemary)

  • Post the session recording on YouTube and the Pacific Planetarium Association website with accompanying resource links.

  • Organize and promote the next session featuring Julia Plummer on light pollution — August 28th at 11:00 AM Pacific / 2:00 PM Eastern / 18:00 UTC.

• All Participants

  • Add names to the sign-up sheet in the chat.

  • Optional homework: Design a school planetarium, classroom, or outdoor experience for 1st graders, 5th graders, and 10th graders that progressively builds toward a formal-level explanation of the seasons by high school; email results to Alan.

Quick recap

This was Module 4 of Alan Gould's Planetarium Educator Workshop series, focusing on "How the Audience Sees It" - specifically addressing how visitors perceive and understand scientific concepts. Alan led participants through discussions about students' existing theories and frames of reference regarding Earth's shape, gravity, and moon phases, using Piaget's levels of cognitive development to explain different reasoning abilities. The workshop included interactive activities where participants role-played as students with different understanding levels, examined moon phase diagrams and classification challenges, and discussed concrete demonstration strategies like the "moon ball" activity. Rosemary Walling co-hosted the virtual session and announced upcoming events, while participants shared practical insights about teaching astronomy concepts in planetarium settings and the challenges of helping students move from intuitive to formal reasoning levels.

Next steps

Alan

- Copy the URLs for the Planetarium Educators Workshop Guide, the slides used, and other resources into the chat.

- Check if the solar motion demonstrator activity is included in the classroom activities section of the Stonehenge program.

Rosemary

- Put the links to the recording on YouTube and the Pacific Planetarium Association website in the chat.

- Post the sign-up link for the August 28th session with Julia Plummer in the chat.

Collaboration

- Attendees: Email Alan with any ideas or solutions for the challenge of designing a school planetarium/classroom/outdoor experience for students to understand the seasons at different grade levels.

Summary

Technical Meeting Setup Preparations

Rosemary and Alan discussed technical preparations for an upcoming meeting, including connecting to Ethernet for better internet stability and setting up cloud recording with screen sharing capabilities. Alan provided guidance to Rosemary on managing different screen viewing options during recordings, explaining when to use speaker view versus multi-speaker view depending on the presentation format. The conversation also included personal updates between the participants, including Amy's current location at the College of Idaho and her 26-year tenure there, as well as a brief discussion about virtual conference experiences and the environmental impact of remote work tools.

Planetarians Educator Workshop Part Four

The meeting began with informal introductions and casual conversation among participants, including Karl sharing that he was located in the Santa Cruz Mountains with his family, including a new baby granddaughter. Rosemary Walling from the Marie Drake Planetarium in Juneau, Alaska, took control of the meeting and announced that Alan Gould would be presenting part four of his Planetarians Educator Workshop. Rosemary also announced an upcoming presentation by Julia Plummer on light pollution scheduled for August 28th, and provided details about the presentation time and sign-up process.

Planetarium Educators Workshop Module 4

Alan led Module 4 of the Planetarium Educators Workshop, focusing on how audiences perceive planetarium shows. He provided a brief recap of previous modules and outlined the structure of the current session, which covers how to assess students' knowledge and reasoning abilities at the outset and determine effective teaching approaches. Alan introduced a study conducted in the Boston area that asked specific questions of high school students, and he invited a volunteer to read the first question. The session aimed to explore techniques and activities that would be effective in engaging audiences, with an emphasis on both live interactions and recorded programs.

Astronomical Misconceptions in Classroom Study

Alan presented findings from a classroom study showing students' misconceptions about basic astronomical concepts, with only 52% correctly answering how long it takes Earth to orbit the sun, 36% understanding moon phases correctly, and 43% knowing the cause of seasons. He explained how people's understanding of Earth's shape develops through different mental models, with studies showing first graders typically view Earth as flat, third graders can synthesize multiple perspectives, and by fifth grade about half develop more scientific mental models. The discussion concluded with Alan describing a GEMS guide activity that challenges participants to explain how the sun returns to the east each morning from a flat Earth perspective.

Solar and Earth Movement Theories

The group discussed various theories about the sun's movement, including ideas about it turning off and moving back to the east, going through doors, and representing a birth and death cycle. They then reviewed answers to a questionnaire about Earth's shape and gravity, with most participants correctly identifying that Earth appears flat in certain views due to perspective and that looking through an Earth-like glass would show people in far-off places in the same direction as the Earth's curvature. The discussion concluded with an explanation of what would happen to rocks dropped by people standing at different locations on Earth, with participants agreeing that the rocks would fall toward the center of the Earth.

Gravity and Earth's Shape Concepts

The group discussed scientific explanations of gravity and Earth's shape, including how rocks would fall toward the center of Earth and the concept of a tunnel through Earth. They reviewed student drawings about these concepts, noting common misconceptions like rocks going to the center of Earth or stopping at the other side. The discussion then moved to frames of reference, using the Martian moon problem as an example to explain how objects appear differently depending on the observer's perspective, with participants correctly identifying the phase of Deimos as A.

Cognitive Development and Reasoning

The group discussed a question about whether Phobos or Mars appears brighter in a diagram, with most participants answering B while a few answered D. Alan explained that the difference in answers reflected different levels of cognitive development, specifically referencing Piaget's stages of reasoning. He described how some students could project themselves into different frames of reference while others could only see from their own perspective, with the latter operating at an egocentric level. The discussion concluded with an example from a Wizard of Id cartoon to illustrate formal versus egocentric reasoning, and ended with a question about how to communicate that two galaxies with different viewing angles actually have the same spiral shape to concrete learners.

Galaxy and Moon Teaching Methods

The group discussed ways to visually demonstrate galaxy orientation and moon phases to different audiences. They explored using 3D models, digital graphics, physical objects like coins and Frisbees, and body parts as teaching aids. The conversation then shifted to analyzing a complex moon phase diagram, with participants agreeing it requires formal-level reasoning to understand and noting that many students find it confusing. The discussion concluded with an explanation of different reasoning levels in scientific explanations, from egocentric to formal, and plans to role-play interviews about moon phases.

Moon Phases Reasoning Exercise

The group conducted a table review exercise analyzing different levels of reasoning about moon phases, with participants taking on roles as interviewers and respondents. They evaluated various responses from participants playing roles like Tina, Derek, and Herbert, discussing how different reasoning levels (egocentric, concrete, and formal) were demonstrated through explanations about moon phases and lunar shadows. The discussion concluded with an overview of classification skills across different developmental levels, from basic similarity/difference recognition to complex hierarchical organization.

Astronomy Teaching Workshop

Alan conducted a workshop on teaching astronomy concepts, focusing on the Moon Ball activity which demonstrates moon phases using individual lighted balls. The discussion included various teaching approaches and modifications to the activity, with participants sharing additional methods like using outdoor sunlight and connecting moon phases to time-telling. Rosemary raised concerns about students' limited night sky observations due to weather and modern lifestyles, while Alan emphasized the importance of using models and realistic expectations when teaching astronomy concepts.

Solar Motion Demonstrator model was mentioned as useful for teaching about seasonal changes in the Sun's position at various places on Earth.

Solar Motion Demonstrator:

• 12 page version (with questions, for classrooms)

• 1 page version (larger size)

• Jumbo demo size (assemble from 3 pages)