J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:508–524 DOI 10.1007/s10956-011-9299-y

Atom Surprise: Using Theatre in Primary Science Education Ran Peleg • Ayelet Baram-Tsabari

Published online: 13 April 2011  Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract Early exposure to science may have a lifelong effect on children’s attitudes towards science and their motivation to learn science in later life. Out-of-class environments can play a significant role in creating favourable attitudes, while contributing to conceptual learning. Educational science theatre is one form of an outof-class environment, which has received little research attention. This study aims to describe affective and cognitive learning outcomes of watching such a play and to point to connections between theatrical elements and specific outcomes. ‘‘Atom Surprise’’ is a play portraying several concepts on the topic of matter. A mixed methods approach was adopted to investigate the knowledge and attitudes of children (grades 1–6) from two different school settings who watched the play. Data were gathered using questionnaires and in-depth interviews. Analysis suggested that in both schools children’s knowledge on the topic of matter increased after the play with younger children gaining more conceptual knowledge than their older peers. In the public school girls showed greater gains in conceptual knowledge than boys. No significant changes in students’ general attitudes towards science were found, however, students demonstrated positive changes towards science learning. Theatrical elements that seemed to be important in children’s recollection of the play were the narrative, props and stage effects, and characters. In the children’s memory, science was intertwined with the Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9299-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. R. Peleg
A. Baram-Tsabari (&) Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, 32000 Haifa, Israel e-mail: [email protected]

123

theatrical elements. Nonetheless, children could distinguish well between scientific facts and the fictive narrative. Keywords Science theatre
Informal education
Humanistic science education
Primary science education

Introduction The advantages of exposing children to science are many. Such exposure may increase students’ interest in science and lay the foundation for better understanding of phenomena at a later stage in the formal science learning (Eshach and Fried 2005; Osborne and Dillon 2008). Creating positive attitudes towards science at an early age is also important, since children often decide at an early age whether they will choose science further on in their studies (Maltese and Tai 2010; The Royal Society 2004). Such exposure may occur inside the science classroom as well as in out-of-class environments such as museums, science-centres, after-school activities, the media and fieldtrips (Eshach 2007; National Academies of Science 2009). One such out-of-class teaching environment which allows exposure to science at an early age is the science theatre. Educational science plays are being produced around the world (e.g. Baum and Hughes 2001; Begoray and Stinner 2005), yet they have thus far received very little research attention. In this report we will adopt the distinction between drama activities and theatre, following suggestions made by Schonmann (1995): In the educational context, activities whereby the learner is a passive viewer (such as a ‘traditional’ theatre pieces) will be referred to as theatre; activities whereby the learner is an active participant in the learning process will be referred to as drama activities.

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:508–524

While several authors have underlined the advantages of using drama in the classroom (Begoray and Stinner 2005; McSharry and Jones 2000; Ødegaard 2003), research on educational science theatre has been very limited. This study empirically explores the use of science theatre within the formal education system, yet in an out-of-class environment.

Theoretical Framework Little has been scholarly written on theatre in science education, therefore, no theoretical framework naturally landed itself to this study. Two fields, however, share some of the goals and aims of educational science theatre—informal science learning and humanistic science education.

509

informal education. We therefore choose to adopt three of the six aspects of the NRC’s framework, namely: experience excitement, interest and motivation to learn science (strand 1), understand and use concepts relating to science (strand 2) and develop an identity of a science learner (strand 6). The assessment of informal leaning environments is not a straight forward task, due to the difficulty of defining the desired outcomes (NAS 2009). Typically research in outof-school environments has looked at both cognitive and affective aspects of learning (Eshach 2007). Results have shown positive affective outcomes such as a sense of wonder, interest and motivation, but conflicting evidence as to the cognitive outcomes (Eshach 2007). Humanistic Science Education

Informal Learning Several forms of out-of-class learning environments have been studied extensively within the framework of informal education, including school based field trips, visits to museums, science centres and zoos (Anderson and Lucas 1997; Bamberger and Tal 2007; Falk and Storksdieck 2005; Orion 1993; Orion et al. 1997). The exact definition of informal learning, though, is not entirely agreed upon in the literature due to the multitude of such environments (Eshach 2007; Hofstein and Rosenfeld 1996). Hofstein and Rosenfeld (1996) suggest two definitions. The first draws a sharp dichotomy between formal and informal learning, whereby formal learning is among others structured, sequenced and compulsory, whilst informal learning is unstructured, unsequenced and voluntary. The second type of definition allows for formal learning to occur under certain conditions in informal learning. The National Research Council (NRC 2009), suggest a more compound definition based not only on the environment but also aims and goals of informal education. This is composed of six strands describing aspects of informal learning learners should experience: strand 1—excitement, interest and motivation to learn about phenomena in the natural and physical world; strand 2—generate, understand and use concepts and explanations related to science; strand 3—manipulate, test, explore, predict, question, observe and make sense of the natural and physical world; strand 4—reflect on science as a way of knowing; strand 5—Participate in scientific activities with others using scientific language and tools; and strand 6—develop an identity as someone who knows about, uses and contributes to science. Educational science theatre shares only some of the features of informal environment. Although it is structured and sequenced, it does allow viewers freedom of engagement and interpretation. It also shares many of the goals of

Traditionally science education has catered for an elite population, screening out other students who have not had or wanted to have anything to do with science (Aikenhead 2004). Yet the benefits and indeed need for a scientific literate population have led to ‘‘science for all’’ programs in many countries (Kofoed 2006; Laugksch 2000; Osborne and Dillon 2008). Since these cater for a more heterogeneous population they require a different approach for engaging students (Osborne and Dillon 2008). Humanistic science education aims to provide science education such an approach which is more human, socially relevant and appealing; one that presents it as a human and social endeavor with all its strengths and weaknesses in the hope of attracting more students to science and facilitating the learning of science (Stinner 1995). Within the calls for a humanistic science education there are specific calls to approach science through narrative and stories (Hadzigeorgiou 2006; Millar and Osborne 1998; Stinner 1995), affect (Alsop 2001; Reiss 2005) and drama (Ødegaard 2003; Yoon 2006). Several studies demonstrated that stories and narrative can create empathy which aid cognitive learning (Casey et al. 2008; Solomon 2002). Affective factors such as emotions are strongly linked to the learning process and can both enhance and hinder it (Immordino-Yang and Damasio 2007; Ingleton 1999). Drama and theatre both combine the qualities of narrative and affect, and therefore, can serve to increase cognitive and affective learning (Baum and Hughes 2001; Littledyke 2008; Yoon 2006). In this research we will attempt to see how theatre (not drama) can draw on the narrative and the affective in order to teach cognitive aspects of science and change attitudes. Although this research has many aspects in common with humanistic science education such as making science more appealing and relavant, it does not share the aspect of understanding social issues associated with science (Aikenhead 2004).

123

510

This study aims to describe affective and cognitive learning outcomes of watching an educational science play, as well as ways in which the narrative and affective qualities of a play can serve these outcomes.

Literature Review Empirical Studies in Educational Theatre Little is known on how audience learn from an educational play. Empirical studies of audience acceptance of plays are limited, mainly due to the traditional methodological differences between arts research and social research (Urian 2008). Art research usually stems from and focuses on the written text or on the theatre performance. However, in order to understand the acceptance of the play by the audience, research tools such as questionnaires or interviews must be used. These have traditionally been foreign to the arts researcher. One environment in which empirical studies in educational theatre have been conducted is United Kingdom based movement ‘‘Theatre in Education’’ (TIE). In a study performed in 1972 in a TIE setting, researchers created two plays around the same theme, one in which the children were passive viewers and another in which the children were actively involved. Assessment was performed by asking the children to recall the story by drawing and writing. The researchers found that the story recall was better for the children who watched the play. The children who participated in the play showed a greater variety and imaginative involvement in their pictures and writing (O’Toole 1976; Redington 1983). This finding was replicated in another TIE setting by two TIE team members, who revisited a school 18 months after having conducted TIE activities. To their surprise, they found that children remembered a play performed (with no children participation) far more vividly than they remembered the games in which they participated (Redington 1983). Empirical research has also been conducted on theatre and drama activities in science museums. Hughes et al. (2007) suggest that in addition to the emotional engagement of visitors in museums, plays or actors in role can draw visitors to an exhibition or slow the visitor down to catch their attention. Baum and Hughes (2001) who evaluated science plays at the Museum of Science in Boston found both an increase in cognitive knowledge as well as positive affective outcomes. Black and Goldowsky (in Hughes et al. 2007), for example, researched students who watched a play on the topic of the Human Genome Project using open-ended pre/post survey. More students could articulate how the Human Genome Project might affect their lives after watching the play. Hughes et al. (2007)

123

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:508–524

conclude that the field is ‘‘varied and evolving’’ and has ‘‘only recently begun to be articulated, let alone addressed, by researchers.’’ (p. 692). Halpern (2008) presented a research conducted on a non-educational science-themed play, ‘‘RE:Design’’. The play, through original written correspondence by Charles Darwin presents his life stories, as well as the development of Darwin’s theory, his concern that it might cause controversy and his fear that someone would beat him at publishing it. The play was presented to an adult audience on Cornell University’s campus. In a survey and a focus group audience members testified that ‘‘the narrative and performative nature helped them to ‘learn in a different way’’ (p. 16). Another interesting finding was that twothirds of the open-ended survey answers related to personal characteristics or interpersonal relationships in the play, and many audience members noted that ‘‘scientists are people, too’’ (p. 17). Halpern concluded that the play succeeded in placing Darwin’s ideas in a cultural context aiding in enrichment of scientific information and an appreciation of science and scientists. Drama in Science Education A similar environment in which more research has been conducted is the use of drama in the classroom. Yet despite the growing body of research, Ødegaard (2003) notes that ‘‘the field of drama in science education is neither highly theorized nor highly researched’’ (p. 76). The research on drama in science education has encompassed a variety of subject matters such as electricity (Braund 1999), molecules and the states of matter (Metcalfe et al. 1984) and mixtures and solutions (Arieli 2007). Research tools included the use of questionnaires and interviews. Findings suggested that drama activities might not necessarily improving factual recall (Metcalfe et al. 1984; Ødegaard 2003) but can lead to deeper understanding of the topic learnt (Arieli 2007; Braund 1999). In all studies cited above the learners enjoyed learning through drama. Elementary School Children’s Conceptions of Matter The play studied in this paper deals with the topic of matter. Therefore, a brief review on children’s perception on two sub-topics that appear in the play, namely mass and the particulate theory of matter is offered. Mass Studies summarized by Driver et al. (1994) show that from an early age, children notice how different objects ‘press down’ differently on their hands and eventually generate an

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:508–524

idea that the felt weight is a property of the object. The separate concepts of the felt weight and mass develop slowly. A basic notion of density starts to develop at the ages of 5–7 with a notion of ‘heavy for size’. Further development of the concept of density at the ages of 9–10 appears as an ability to compare densities of different materials (a pebble is ‘light for them’ but ‘heavy for water’, p. 78). The Particulate Theory of Matter The particulate theory is of great importance for most branches of science, yet its’ understanding is not trivial and requires a significant conceptual change (Meyer 2005; Yechieli and Nussbaum 2002). In Israel, where this research takes place, as in many other countries, it is not included in the national curriculum for elementary schools in science and technology (Ministry of Education 2005). This absence is due to a idea that elementary school children are concrete thinkers and that the abstract world of atoms and molecules are beyond children’s ability to comprehend. Yet a study of beliefs of 15 children aged 7–10 on matter defy this common belief (Nakhleh and Samarapungavan 1999). The study described here challenged this belief as well.

Research Questions The aim of this research is to characterize the learning environment of an educational science play in light of the aims of informal science education and that of a humanistic approach to science teaching. Broadly we ask: 1

2

3

What are the affective and cognitive learning outcomes of primary school children watching an educational science play on the topic of matter and how do these change with age, gender and school culture? How are the different theatrical elements that form an educational science play on the topic of matter perceived by the elementary school learners, and how do these different elements help or inhibit the learning? Can primary school students distinguish between the fictive narrative and the scientific content in a play on the topic of matter?

Methodology

511

discusses several basic concepts of matter (mass, volume, atoms, molecules and the three states of matter). The play was written by a team of three, all with background in physical theatre. One of the writers, the lead author of this study, also has a master’s degree in chemical engineering. In the play a boy and a girl enter a science class for the first time (Fig. 1). Through interactions with the teacher, a magic adventure and a treasure hunt the two characters (and consequently the audience) become familiarized with the world of matter. In addition there is a short account of Dalton and the formulation of the atomic theory. At a certain stage in the adventure the characters must ‘enter’ different materials and find out what they are. The play climaxes with a TV style game show. In addition to the science themes, there is also a repetitive prosocial theme throughout the play of children’s (high and low) selfesteem with respect to science, school and other students.1 The play was constructed with this aim of teaching and changing attitudes towards science. However, a great deal of deliberation took place while constructing the play as to make it a play that would be enjoyable by all viewers regardless of their orientation to science. Care was taken to make a good play that would be appreciated as a play regardless of its educational content. It seems that this effort was worthwhile since the play was approved by ‘‘Sal Tarbut’’ an organization linked to the Ministry of Education in Israel that confirms the artistic quality of plays prior to their appearance in schools. The Sample The study was conducted in two elementary schools in Israel, differing in their backgrounds in achievement and emphasis on science. In both cases the play was presented as an enrichment activity to the entire student body. Since the study concentrated on the child’s experience of viewing the play, the sample included students only and not their respective teachers. Setting I: A Public School An average achievement elementary school from a nondeprived socio-economic background with around 500 students in six school grades. Contact with the school was made through a near-by community centre which supported the production of the play and where the play was held. Science is taught in the school as required in the national curriculum. According to the school’s science coordinator knowledge on the topic of matter the children

The Play 1

The play that was used as an intervention in this study is ‘‘Atom Surprise’’. It is a 40 min, two-actor play which

An excerpt of the play may be viewed on-line at http://www. madatron.co.il/. A comprehensive description of the play is attached as supporting documents.

123

512

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:508–524

Fig. 1 The two main characters in the play ‘‘Atom Surprise’’. The special style of the props may be seen

possessed was mainly obtained from the school’s enrichment programs. The study group consisted of all students from all 2nd and 4th grade classes (ages 7–8 to 10–11, respectively) in the school who were willing to participate in the study. 118 questionnaires were collected about a week before the play and 99 questionnaires were collected about a week after play. Teachers and administrators from the school selected the grades.

with it, but would like to learn about it; and 10% were not acquainted with this topic and did not want to learn about it. In the private school 27% of the students reported that they were acquainted with the topic of matter; 55% reported that they were not, but wanted to learn about it; and 18% were not acquainted with this topic and did not want to learn about it.

Setting II: A Private School

A mixed methods approach was chosen for this study, which included questionnaires and interviews. Since the research involves primary school children, special care had to be taken in constructing the research tools (Christensen and James 2002).

A high achievement private elementary school that has a rich science education program starting in the first grade. The school was chosen due to its’ professional connection with the research university. The study group consisted of students in six intact classes from each grade level (grades 1–6, ages 6–12). A pre-play questionnaire was administered about a week before the play to 288 students in all classes of the school. All classes watched the show, but some of them did not participate in the post questionnaire and it was administered about a week after the play to some 148 students. A delayed post questionnaire was collected about 10 months after the play in the following school year from 164 students (including some who did not take the immediate post) to check for long term retention. The students who were in grade 6 in the year the play was shown had already left the school when the delayed post questionnaire was administered. Whilst questionnaires were anonymous, paring of pretest, posttest and delayed-posttest questionnaires was permitted using a student serial number given by the teacher. To better understand the setting, children in both schools were asked in the questionnaires if they were acquainted with the topic of matter prior to watching the play. In the public school only 18% reported that they were acquainted with the topic; 72% reported that they were not familiar

123

Research Tools

Questionnaires2 The use of questionnaire with primary school students was seen as appropriate when special considerations are taken (Scott 2002). Questionnaires were therefore read aloud to the younger children (as in Murphy and Beggs 2001; Pell and Jarvis 2001; West et al. 1997), questions were kept simple and while administering the questionnaires the researcher stressed that it is not a test and ‘don’t know’ answers are acceptable (Scott 2002). The three questionnaires (pre, post and delayed-post) used in this study consisted of four sections: 1.

2

Content knowledge on the topic of matter (8 questions). These questions aim at testing student’s understanding of the concepts of ‘mass’, ‘volume’, ‘atoms’, ‘molecules’ and ‘matter’. Each question in the pre questionnaire had a matching (yet different) question in the post and the delayed post questionnaires. Examples for questions are: ‘‘A molecule is composed

An English translation of all three questionnaires is attached as supporting documents.

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:508–524

2.

3.

4.

of atoms (correct/incorrect/I don’t know)’’ and ‘‘Which item has the bigger mass (a picture of an inflated balloon/a picture of a telephone).’’ Misconception (1 question). This question was used to find if the play may have developed the misconception that molecules can be seen. The question was: ‘‘Molecules can be seen without a microscope (correct/incorrect/I don’t know).’’ General Attitudes towards science and science learning) 9 Questions in the pre and 5 in the post and delayed post questionnaires). E.g.: ‘‘Is learning science difficult? (Very difficult/a bit difficult/quite easy/very easy).’’ Attitudes and feelings towards the play ‘‘Atom Surprise’’ (6 Questions in the post and delayed-post questionnaires only). E.g.: ‘‘What did you like/dislike most about the play (open ended)’’ and ‘‘How did the play contribute to your knowledge?’ (I learnt a lot in the play/I learnt a bit in the play/I didn’t learn anything in the play).’’

In the public school, questionnaires could not be identified, preventing the pairing of individual pre and post questionnaires. The private school allowed placing a student code for each questionnaire, so that pre, post and delayed-post questionnaires could be paired. Questionnaire’s Validation and Piloting The pre and post questionnaires were first piloted on a small group of students (n = 20 pre, n = 27 post) in grades 2–4 who watched the play. An addition test/retest was performed on a small group of children (n = 23) in the fourth and fifth grades who did not watch the play, in order to verify that the questionnaire itself does not change knowledge or attitudes. The post questionnaires were administered about a week after the pre questionnaire. No statistically significant increase in the percentage of correct answers was recorded. Finally, in order to establish face validity, the questionnaire was used in two of the interviews to see how the children made meaning of the questions. The questionnaire was first administered in the public school. Minor changes were made and several questions related to attitudes were added before the research was conducted in the private school. Questionnaire Administration One of the researchers was present during the administration of all questionnaires. Prior to handing out the questionnaire, the researcher stressed that the questionnaire was not a test, that it was anonymous and that the questionnaire would not in any way affect the school grade. This

513

information was also written explicitly in the introductory paragraph of the questionnaire. Children were also encouraged to choose the ‘don’t know’ answers in case they were uncertain of the answer. In the first and second grades the questionnaire was read out loud. Whilst the first graders could read by the time the questionnaires were administered, the researcher noticed that they were having trouble filling in the pre-play questionnaire mainly due to its length. Therefore, few questions were skipped in the pre-questionnaire and a shorter post-play questionnaire was developed for the first graders. Interviews Interviews were only conducted in the private school due to restrictions set by the public one. Students were chosen by the science teacher to represent high, middle and low achievers in science and for being good informants. The information of the student’s achievement level was not disclosed to the researcher for ethical reasons. The first interviews were conducted with one, two or three students. It became evident that groups of two worked best, as they permitted dialogue between students which did not diverge as it did with a bigger group. Interviews were always with students from the same grade level, but they could be single or mixed-sex. The researcher stressed that information in the interview will not be passed to the school. Care was taken to respect the children’s literary abilities, cognitive development and attention and concentration span (Christensen and James 2002; Cohen et al. 2000). A total of 17 interviews with 32 children were conducted: Two interviews with first graders, four with sixth graders and three for each of 2nd–5th grades. Interviews were semi-structured, lasted 20–40 min and were audio-taped. Each interview began by asking the children to recall what they remembered from the play. Further questions related to (1) the plot, characters and other theatrical elements of the play; (2) the scientific concepts discussed in the play; (3) the process of learning from plays; and (4) the child’s general attitudes towards science. The interviewer was one of the actors in the play and was also involved in creating the play. This might be viewed as a limitation of the research, as interviewees might have tried to appease the interviewer. Indeed interviewees addressed the interviewer as the character in the play as can be seen in many of the citation that follow in the findings section. However, this limitation was also an advantage, as the interviewer possessed a deep knowledge of the research and of the play. In addition since the children felt very comfortable in addressing the interviewer as the character he plays, it might have allowed a more intimate account of their opinions. Whilst only one pair in one interview

123

514

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:508–524

showed a continued dislike of the entire play, criticism of the play, the characters and the artistic choices was found in several of the interviews, despite the presence of the interviewer. Data Analysis Questionnaires

Theatrical elements of the play including (1) the narrative, (2) the characters, (3) interaction between the characters, (4) special theatrical effects, visual elements and props and (5) distinction between the fantastic and the real. The learning process including (6) scientific content learnt and (7) learning environments and learning processes. Personal attitudes including (8) references to the child’s everyday world and (9) attitudes and opinions towards the play, plays in general and science in general.

Knowledge gains were studied quantitatively using two main approaches: (1)

(2)

An overall score of correct answers was assigned to each student (‘I don’t know’ answers were not counted for this analysis). Averages between the pre, post and delayed post (in the private school only) were compared and significance was tested using dependent samples or independent samples t test (In the private school, significance was tested three times: pre versus post scores, post versus delayed post scores and pre versus delayed post scores). To test the differences between the different age groups and the genders, sub-group averages were compared. In order to find the effect of the intervention on specific concepts, the percentage of correct, incorrect and where applicable ‘I don’t know’ answers were compared pre and post for the nine knowledge questions (including the misconceptions question). Significance was tested using a chi-squared test.

For the general attitude questions an average score was calculated for each question and significance was tested using independent and dependent samples t test. A qualitative approach was adopted for the attitudes and feelings section of the questionnaires. An emerging theme analysis with no a priori categories (Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998) was adapted to allow for an unbiased interpretation of the data. Interviews Interviews were transcribed and the scripts were analyzed qualitatively using initial theoretical-based categories, while looking for further emerging categories and themes subsequent to immersion in the data (Marshall and Rossman 2006). Initial categories were based on the research questions, questions presented at the interview as well as literature on the fundamental elements of theatre (Feingold 1996; Schonmann 2006; Thompson 2006; Wilson 1994). Two researchers categorized two interviews independently and categories were thus refined to achieve an acceptable level of inter-judgmental reliability. Nine categories were subsequently agreed upon. These can be split into three sub-categories:

123

Findings In order to explore the characteristics of teaching science using a science play, elementary school children from a public and private school watched a science theatre show which introduced the topic of matter. Our findings will concentrate on the learning outcomes, perception of the theatrical elements and viewers’ ability to distinguish between fact and fiction in the play. Learning Outcomes Content Knowledge An increase in average questionnaire scores in both schools indicated that children learned scientific concepts from the play (Fig. 2). In the public school scores increased from 55 to 64% (an 18% increase in average scores, p \ 0.001) and in the private school from 60 to 73% (a 21% increase, p \ 0.001). A self-reporting question asking the students to rate how the play contributed to their learning found that most of the students felt they had learned something in the play. In the public school (n = 92) 77% felt they had learned a lot, 20% felt they learned a bit and 3% felt they did not learn anything. In the private school (n = 80) 37% felt they had learned a lot, 46% felt they learned a bit and 17% felt they did not learn anything. The difference between the two schools is consistent with the public school lower average pre-questionnaire scores (Fig. 2). It seems that the higher initial levels of knowledge meant the pupils in the private schools learnt less from the play. Ten month later, in a similar question in the delayed post questionnaire, students in the private school (n = 168) showed reply rates consistent with those of the post questionnaire (39% felt they had learned a lot, 42% felt they learned a bit and 19% felt they did not learn anything. The delayed post-test indicated that the knowledge was not retained well. Comparing the means of the classes who took the three questionnaires (grades 1–5 in the year of the play, grades 2–6 in the year the delayed post questionnaire was administered), the average score in the delayed post

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:508–524

515

Fig. 2 Average questionnaire scores for the entire sample in the two school settings. ***—marks significance at the level of p \ 0.001. Significance was tested using an unpaired samples t test. In the private school not all classes participating in the pre questionnaire also participated in the post questionnaire (hence the large differences in n). Two tests were conducted: a paired sample t test with 119 pairs of questionnaires and an unpaired sample t test as shown above. Both revealed similar findings, the unpaired sample test is shown, as it encompasses a greater sample. Error bars show the standard deviation

questionnaire were only slightly higher (pre average score = 56%, n = 230; post average score = 70%, n = 113; delayed post average score = 60%, n = 163), with no significant difference between the pre and delayedpost average scores. The acquisition of content knowledge changed with age and gender. Older children demonstrated greater content knowledge both before and after the play, compared to their younger peers. Although all age groups showed an increase in score after watching the play, the knowledge gain of the younger students was greater than that of the older ones (Fig. 3). It seems that older student had higher initial knowledge on the topic and therefore showed a lower increase in average questionnaire scores. Different trends with regard to gender interaction with the content knowledge were found in the public and private school. In the public school boys’ average scores were higher than the girls’ before watching the play. Yet after having watched the play, girls scores were slightly higher than the boys’ scores (Fig. 4a). In the private school both girls and boys added an average of 12 points to their scores: the average boys’ score improved from 66 pretest to 78 posttest (17% change, p \ 0.001), while the average girls’ score improved from 60 in the pretest to 72 in the post test (21% change, p \ 0.001) (Fig. 4b). Characteristics of the Acquired Knowledge Indeed, the theatre show seemed to teach content knowledge—but what kinds of content knowledge? Of the four

Fig. 3 Pre and post test scores in the different age groups in a settings I—the public school and b settings II—the private school. Significant increase in score was tested using unpaired sample t test and paired sample t test respectively, and is marked: ***—p \ 0.001. Error bars show the standard deviation

statements that showed the highest increase in correct answers, three related to concepts discussed explicitly in the play: ‘Water and air are matter’; ‘The smallest particle constituting matter is an atom’; and ‘A molecule is made of atoms’. Items that were not discussed explicitly, such as ‘In iron particles are very close to one another’, and ‘Which item has a bigger mass?, did not show a significant increase in correct answers. An exception was the statement ‘An elephant/a fly have big mass’, which requires an application of the term mass, yet did show a significant increase in correct answers (Table 1). Students could recall successfully knowledge that was explicitly stated in the play, yet with no further help found it difficult to apply the terms mentioned in the play. The ability to recall facts and definitions from the play, was also seen in the interviews. In virtually all the interviews children could recall concepts mentioned in the interview (theme i in Table 2). Many times this recall was accompanied by an example from the play. In many cases when asked

123

516

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:508–524

Researcher: Maya:

‘‘Did you think so before the play too? ‘‘No, we didn’t think about it.’’

Other students, described learning from plays as fun and helpful. Amos, a boy in the fourth grader commented: ‘‘It was easy [to learn this way], it just slips in.’’ Several students mentioned that they learned new things during the play or that they finally understood things they have heard before. They claimed this helped them want to know more and learn more science: Coral:

Aviv:

‘‘I thought science is difficult, but really really difficult. But I saw the play and started to understand, so now, it isn’t so difficult. It changed things [attitudes] for me a bit.’’ (Second grade girl) ‘‘The play made the subject … well, I wouldn’t say really easy, but easier. Less complicated than it seemed before. So I watched and at the end of the play I said: well if it isn’t that complicated … then I’m more interested now and I want to know more than I did before.’’ (Fifth grade girl)

As with the content knowledge, students connect their attitudinal change towards school science and themselves as science learners, to the storyline: Lee: Fig. 4 Pre and post test scores for the different genders in a settings I—the public school and b settings II—the private school. Significant was calculated using unpaired sample t test and paired sample t test respectively, and is marked: **—p \ 0.01; ***—p \ 0.001. Error bars show the standard deviation

to recall either the play or the science content from the play, students did not separate the two and they were recited together (theme ii). In some case, children found it difficult to expand beyond the concepts discussed explicitly in the play (theme iii). However, in few cases spontaneous decoding of implicit messages in the play did occur (theme iv), sometimes based on prior knowledge (theme v). Attitudes Towards School Science Questionnaires and interviews revealed that watching the play did not change viewers’ attitudes towards science or scientists. It did, however, change their views regarding what school science can be. When asked if the played changed the way they saw science or the way science could be taught, these two girls in the third grade said: Maya: Lee:

123

‘‘You can learn science through a play.’’ ‘‘You can learn both inside the classroom, and outside [the classroom]. You can bring different things.’’

Interviewer: Lee: Maya:

‘‘When the teacher enters and says all those things and Shira explains them to you, and when she opens the book and you enter the world of the molecules, I felt that I also can.’’ ‘‘Can do what?’’ ‘‘Learn more about science.’’ ‘‘Yes. It is possible. She is right.’’ (Two third grade girls)

Learning from Educational Plays This section continues exploring the affective domain, but focuses on students’ views of the learning environment rather than their attitudes toward school science or themselves as science learners. The students3 enjoyed the experience of watching and learning from the play. In the post questionnaires, students were asked to choose from a number of randomly listed words or phrases that could describe the play, the ones which best described the way they felt about the play. The percentage each word or phrase was chosen to describe the play were: ‘funny’— 85%, ‘teaches’—79%, ‘interesting’—75%, ‘nice’—73%, ‘recommendable’—64%, ‘fun’—60%, ‘easy’—28%, 3

Only students from the private school were interviewed and answered questions regarding the play itself in the post questionnaire.

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:508–524

517

Table 1 Percentage of correct answers for the eight statement in the questionnaire Statement being tested

Percentage of correct answers Public school

Private school

Pre (%)

Post (%)

Pre (%)

Post (%)

55

68

59

85

***

An elephant/a fly have big mass The smallest particle constituting matterb

44 33

64 53

*** ***

60 47

73 73

* ***

A molecule is made of atomsa

36

73

***

60

88

***

52

61

62

74

70

63

Most pre-post differences Water/air is mattera a

Least pre-post differences In air particles hardly move/In iron particles are very close to one anothera Which has the bigger mass?

c

51

59

Which has the bigger volume?c

94

87

Which picture depicts a gasd

79

72

*

96

90

82

83

*

The top four statements showed most pre-post difference, and the bottom four the least pre-post difference. Significance was tested using v2 test The percentage of wrong or I don’t know answers is not shown but they were taken into account in the significance testing a

Questions with three options: true/false/do not know

b

Multiple choice question with four options Questions showing pictures of two different object

c d

Questions representing particles in the three states of matter

* p \ 0.05, *** p \ 0.001

‘boring’—25%, ‘thrilling’—21%, ‘doesn’t teach’—19%, ‘annoying’—15%, ‘not recommended’—13%, ‘waste of time’—13%, ‘incomprehensible’—11%, and ‘difficult’—3%. Some 10 months after watching the play, in the delayed post questionnaire, 54% of the students claimed they liked the play a lot, 28% claimed they somewhat liked it, and 18% claimed they didn’t like it. They were further asked to elaborate on the reason why they liked or disliked the play. Out of the 306 questionnaires collected, 146 students chose to elaborate. Their open ended answers were analysed using an emerging theme analysis with no a priori categories.4 The most often mentioned themes for liking the play were: ‘it was funny’, ‘because I learned something new’, ‘it was interesting’ and ‘I enjoyed the play’ (Table 3). Themes most mentioned for disliking the play were: ‘it wasn’t enjoyable’ and ‘I don’t like science’. The same themes were also found in the interviews, with many children stating that they liked the play, that it was interesting, funny and they appreciated it because they learnt something new from it. A second grader summed all of the above together, saying: Coral:

4

I think… that plays are really interesting. It’s fun… Plays are a form of entertainment that (a) gives you information, (b) is fun to watch and

Each statement could be placed in several categories. For example, ‘‘because the play was interesting and funny’’ was categorized in both the ‘funny‘ and the ‘interesting’ categories.

(c) sometimes gives you a family reunion (Second grade girl) The interview highlighted the advantages of learning from educational plays as being entertaining and illustrative. The following excerpt is representative of about half of the interviews and highlights some of these points: Aviv:

Bat: Aviv:

Interviewer: Aviv: Interviewer:

Aviv: Bat:

It conveys the message for children easier. I mean, for me, if the science teacher would now teach the same lesson, but in a lesson not in a play, I think it would take me longer to understand, because in the play you demonstrated. You illustrated. Yes, we saw that. It’s not just scribbles on the wall, it is nicer. There is also a stronger will to listen to the play. In a lesson, you don’t always want to listen. You mean the play attracts attention? Yes. And what if the teacher would bring the same [model] molecule all the other props and teach a ‘normal’ lesson, but showing the molecule…? Maybe a little… Not really, because after all she is not a drama teacher and she couldn’t do it in a

123

518

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:508–524

Table 2 Summary of the themes found in the interviews relating to knowledge acquisition

i

Theme

Example

Occurrence

Viewers recollection of facts and definitions from the play; Interviewees use of examples from the play to demonstrate them these facts and definitions

Tala : ‘‘All matter has mass.’’

In all 17 interviews there was a recollection of some of the terms. Six examples from the play were given to explain concepts

Sonia: ‘‘It is composed of mass and…’’ Tal: ‘‘Matter is mass and also volume. If it doesn’t have a mass then it is not matter.’’ [second sentence is a quote from the play] (An interview with three girls in the sixth grade) Yam : ‘‘Volume for example is like a balloon. It has the volume of the air inside and it also has a mass, like that the biggest schoolbag had another schoolbag in it and another one and another one.’’ [relating to different size schoolbags that are shown in the play to demonstrate the concept of volume] (Sixth grade boy)

ii

Viewers’ recollection of scientific terms interwoven with the narrative of the play

Lee: ‘‘In the beginning there are two children who go to school and they learn about atoms, molecules and such…you entered the world of the molecules and the atoms.. you saw the molecules and you knew how to answer the questions [in the quiz show scene].’’

Half the interviews

(Third grade girl) Alon: ‘‘.. or the water that you drank, and then she told you, now you are drinking atoms. Or when you ate the sandwich, she told you now, you are eating atoms. So you were scared and you thought that atoms are.. as if something would happen to you.’’ (Fourth grade boy) iii

Students unconfident in expanding the boundaries of the knowledge acquired in the play

Barak: ‘‘There are molecules of sugar, of water and of iron’’

Few

Interviewer: ‘‘Are there molecules of other materials?’’ Barak: ‘‘Yes?’’ Interviewer: ‘‘Like what? What other materials have molecules?’’ Barak: ‘‘I don’t remember. I just remember there were only four there.’’ (boy in the third grade)

iv

Children make sense of the implicit concepts demonstrated the play

Referring to a scene in which the two actors fight over a molecule and tear it apart, yet it always sticks back together, two-fifth grade girls understood that molecules form one unit that is difficult to break:

Few

Dana: ‘‘It’s like, it can never separate, ever. Let say if.. it’s like this table. If I want to break it.’’ Interviewer: ‘‘And can you break a molecule?’’ Dana: ‘‘You can, but it is really difficult.’’ v

a

Students integrating and use prior knowledge

Amos : ‘‘You started to move like this in the iron, your movement was stiffer. In the air it was lighter … That’s because every material has its own properties. For example iron is tougher. It moves a bit sort of heavy, it is more difficult to move. In the water, you were slightly more flexible, because water is easier to move. And in the air, you really started to dance.’’

All citations in the article are verbatim and all of the students’ names are pseudonyms

123

Few

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:508–524

519

Table 3 Reasons the students liked or disliked the play Category

Liked the play

Disliked the play

It was funny

Because I learnt something new

It was Interesting

I enjoyed the play

Because it was on science

Other

n

44

26

23

%

30

18

16

The play wasn’t enjoyable

I don’t like science

Other

18

9

10

9

7

7

12

6

7

6

5

5

Percentages represent the number of answers in each category. One answer could appear in more than one category

very funny manner like professional in a play. Maybe I would listen more closely. But still, when I know it’s a play, and I don’t know what it is, the I listen straight away. It comes automatically. But in a lesson, I know that it’s the same teacher, and again you have to write summaries in the notebook, and again there is a test at the end, so there isn’t much will to listen. (Fifth grade girls)

Aviv:

Other students suggested that the advantage of educational plays is that they speak in ‘their’ own language: Tal:

It’s easier, its more funny. You understand us and they don’t…You connect. It’s like, it’s for children. (Sixth grade girl)

The lack of interactivity was mentioned as a drawback of the play: Daniel:

You can’t talk in a play, that’s a disadvantage. (Fifth grade boy)

A fifth grade girl was concerned about this characteristic, since it might impede her own learning as she cannot ask questions during the play. She mentioned that the repetition of terms in the play helped overcome this obstacle: Aviv:

I don’t always understand the first time around. So with a teacher, I can ask her to repeat what she said, but now that I think about it, in the play, you mentioned the same topic several times, so maybe it’s not a problem. After the play I understood what a molecule was and what an atom was, and afterwards, in the test, not the test, the survey the questionnaire, then I answered and I knew what I was saying. I know that I was answering correctly, compared to before the play, when there were many things I didn’t know. (Fifth grade girl)

Based on their written and spoken word, it seems that the students perceived the play as an interesting and fun learning environment which communicated science

information in an easy way and has useful illustrative aspect. They also perceived the lack of interactivity of traditional theater as a disadvantage of this learning environment. Theatrical Elements and the Learning Process When asked to state the things they liked and disliked the most about the play, students mentioned mainly theatrical elements from the play, while only few commented about the science or the scientific content. Science-related comments constituted a bigger proportion of students’ free recall of what they remembered from the play in both the delayed post questionnaires and the interview, but there were still less science-related comments than comments relating to the theatrical elements (Table 4). Different elements in the play appealed to different children. In this section we will highlight some of the theatrical elements that we aroused interest, empathy, attention, affect or the lack of these. Narrative The most popular and remembered scene of the play, according to the post questionnaires, the delayed postquestionnaire and the free recall in the beginning of the interviews, was a TV style quiz show in which the characters compete against each other on the topic of matter. This is the climax of the play, it provides the most tension and the audience can partially participate in this scene. One scene that was hardly mentioned was one describing the historical story of the scientist John Dalton. In this scene the actors portray a short account of Dalton’s life and his atomic theory. The actors do not speak and there is a recorded sound track that tells the story. While some children could recall few details from the scene, most could not recall it at all. Some interviewees commented explicitly on the fact that the scene did not involve live talk, but only a voiceover, saying: ‘‘…there was a loudspeaker. We didn’t see them.’’ (Gil, boy, first grade), and ‘‘I hate mime … the only thing you said was ‘atom’.’’ (Barak, boy, third grade). It seems that the actors not speaking in this scene, make it unmemorable. Another plausible cause is that the

123

520

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:508–524

Table 4 Showing the number of occurrences in each category of (a) what students liked and disliked about the play in the postquestionnaire, (b) references made at the start of the interview reflecting what children spontaneously remembered of the play, and Certain scene

(a)

Aspect liked in post questionnaire Aspect disliked in post questionnaire

(b)

Aspect remembered in interview

(c)

Aspect remembered in delayed post questionnaire

(c) references made in an open-ended question in the delayed-post questionnaire asking the children to state what they recall best from the play Stage effects, props and special theatrical style

Characters

Interactions between the characters

Scientific content

n

46

37

12

8

%

43

35

11

7

4 4

n

12

17

15

1

3

%

25

35

31

2

6

n

46

24

9

15

40

% n

34 49

18 12

7 36

11 18

30 31

%

34

8

25

12

21

Percentage shown is the percentage of the total number of aspects counted. Each child could contribute more than one aspect

scene is far removed from the students’ everyday life, making it difficult for them to remember the details in general and the name of the scientist in particular. Characters From both the interview and the questionnaire data it seems that the children were very sensitive and showed empathy toward the characters and the interactions between them. The shy and insecure boy received many positive remarks, while the arrogant and overconfident girl received many negative ones. In the interviews children also demonstrated a good understanding of the characters’ feelings and the interaction between the characters. The following examples demonstrate understanding of the characters’ feelings: Amos:

Ram:

Shira used to be the smartest in the class, the one who has the most knowledge, but suddenly you came and disturbed that. So they started to fight. (Fourth grade boy) I saw that [Yoram] wanted to bond with her, to be her friend. (Second grade boy)

It seems that empathy has been established through the characters and interactions between them. Props and Style Many children noted in the post questionnaire that they liked or disliked the particular artistic style of the play, suggesting that they were instinctively sensitive to the artistic style. In the play all props are exaggeratedly big (see Fig. 1) and use is made of physical theatre techniques, whereby the acting involves a lot of bodily movement. The props seemed to play an important role in constructing the memory of the play, as they were mentioned often by

123

the interviewees when asked about the scientific concepts. For example a boy in the sixth grade, mentioned the schoolbag props to explain the definition of volume: Volume is for example … a balloon has a volume of air in it and also a mass. It’s like the big schoolbag which had in it a schoolbag and another schoolbag and another schoolbag.

Yam:

In one interview a boy and a girl in the third grade were asked which of two explanations of the concept of volume was clearer, one spoken one or one demonstrated by props (schoolbags of different sizes). Together: Orly (girl) Barak (boy):

The schoolbags! Because she explained it more, before [in the first explanation] she just said it. There are more details.

Visual effect of the props and the movements served in aiding retention and memory of the play. In contrast children found it very disturbing that certain characters in the play are presented by an audio recording only and are not seen on stage. The children either wondered where they were, what they looked like and what they were doing while talking. Such elements could cause interruption in the child’s concentration on the play and the educational material taught. Humor Humor was often mentioned as an important aspect of the play. In the words students used to describe the play, ‘funny’ was picked by 85% of the children. When freely stating the reasons for liking the play, humor was mentioned 30% of the times. This theme also reoccurred in the interviews: Iris:

If our science teacher would have taught us about protons, then it would have been boring … but here

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:508–524

521

there was humor. So I like learning from plays. (Fifth grade girl) Fact and Fiction It was a concern of the researchers that the children might not distinguish between the scientific concepts in the play and the fictitious elements, for example one of the characters states that a sandwich is made of atoms yet the sandwich shown is visibly a prop made of foam. However, data suggest that the children could clearly distinguish between the two. In the play the characters discuss the fact that matter is composed of atoms in one scene and in a later one they ‘enter’ three different materials and experience them from inside. A second grade girl, could clearly distinguish that the facts from the first scene might be real, whilst the second scene cannot really occur: Coral:

In reality we might really be made of atoms. But you can’t … it wouldn’t be real if you went into materials, into the states of matter.

Two-third grade girls make the distinction between the size model of the molecule shown and the size of real molecules. They also show an understanding of why the model is presented in the play. Interviewer: Maya: Lee: Interviewer: Maya: Lee: Interviewer: Maya:

…Are molecules real? Real! They are real and so are atoms! And are they this big (referring to the size of the molecule in the play). No. No, they are small. Why is the molecule so big in the play? It’s to give an example, it’s not real. I have something to say! When you went into the world of the molecules, it was as if you went under a microscope and we say you under the microscope. (Two third grade girls)

Also, the students felt more at ease questioning or doubting the narrative or the characters then the scientific concepts. Daniel, a fifth boy, questioned the logic of the plot, asking: ‘‘Why were there two lab coats in the treasure box, although only one winner was announced?’’ One specific type of prop used in the play, challenged viewers’ ability to differentiate fact from fiction. A large model of sugar (glucose) molecule (Fig. 5) emerges from a science book, thus beginning the treasure hunt. It is also the key to a magic door and hence becomes a focus point of the competition between the main characters. While solving a riddle to determine what type of molecule it represents, one

Fig. 5 Picture of the sugar molecule shown in the play

character says that sugar molecules probably look like the model, that is, if they could be seen. But they can’t be seen individually, only a group of very many molecules forms a visible block. It was the researchers’ concern that such a brief encounter with the model with a brief oral explanation of the difference between a real molecule and a model would cause confusion. A question was added to both the pre and post questionnaires as to whether molecules can be seen without a microscope. Whilst there was virtually no change in the number of correct answers in the public school (56–55%) and a small increase in the private school (69–75%) between the pre and the post questionnaire, there was an increase in incorrect answers (12–36% in the public school and 12–20% in private school). The number of children who replied that they did not know the answer decreased significantly (from 32–9% in the public school and from 19–5% in the private school). It seems that many children did not know what a molecule was before the play. After the play they did, yet many developed the misconception that molecules may be seen with the naked eye. Whilst the play does stress this fact verbally several times, it seems that this had less impact than seeing the model.

Discussion This research has shed some light on a learning environment that has so far received little research attention. It focused on (1) learning outcomes with regard to content knowledge and attitudes, (2) the perceptions of different theatrical elements and their interaction with the learning outcomes, and (3) the distinction between fact and fiction and the formation of misconceptions. It seems that the play was effective in teaching basic concepts such as ‘mass’, ‘atoms’ and ‘molecules’, yet it was less effective in teaching how to apply these concepts.

123

522

In terms of affective outcomes, it seems the play could not significantly change children’s views on science and scientists, but it did change their views of school science and in some cases their views of themselves as capable and interested science learners. Whilst it seems that the knowledge obtained from the play was forgotten over time, many elements of the play, such as certain scenes and the characters as well as many of the scientific words were remembered over time. Out-of-school literature advises on adding pre and post class-based activities to short interventions in order to enhance and deepen the understanding and the memory of the intervention. A preparation or a conclusive activity have been found to be effective in other out-of-class environments such as visits to science museums and field trips (Anderson et al. 2000; Orion 1993). It is probably advisable to do the same in plays. Indeed, preparation activities and worksheets for ‘Atom Surprise’ are available for teachers who request them, yet their effectiveness remains outside the scope of the current study. An age difference was found in learning outcomes with younger children increasing their knowledge more than older ones. Two possible explanations are that the higher initial knowledge might have created a ‘ceiling effect’ for the older students, or they might have found the play childish and aimed at a younger crowd, and therefore did not learn from it as much as the younger kids. A gender difference was found in the public school setting but not in the private school one. In the public school girls started off with lower initial average questionnaire score, yet this gap was basically eliminated after watching the play. It would be interesting to follow the girls’ knowledge after a while to see if the gap reappears or not. The difference between the two studies may be explained by school culture. In the public school no special stress is given to science education. The private school, on the other hand, is a highachievement private school in which the children receive a lot of science enrichment. In addition many of the children’s parents are from a scientific/technological background. It seems that in the private school the girls are more familiar with science than in the public school and that the initial gap between the boys and the girls was not big. In the public school however, the difference of familiarity with science concepts related to matter the topic of matter between the boys and the girls was greater, a gap the play helped bridge. Research in comparable environments has revealed similar results to the ones found in the public school. Rockman et al. (1996) studied the popular ‘‘Bill Nye the Science Guy’’ educational television series in the United States by following 8–10 year old children (n = 1,350) who were exposed to a number of episodes of the series over a period of several months. They discovered that while girls do not begin with the same knowledge-base as

123

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:508–524

boys, the series served to narrow this gap since the girls gained more science knowledge than the boys did. Tveita (1999, 2000) found that girls learned much more from a unit using drama to teach electricity than from traditional methods and achieved a knowledge level equal to boys despite previous researches showing that boys normally do better than girls in the topic (Jovanovic et al. 1994 in Tveita 2000). Interestingly a later study (Klepaker et al. 2007) showed Norwegian girls to be more enthusiastic to learn science through role-play and drama than Norwegian boys (this was the only learning method amongst 18 other options to show such a gender difference). Based on their achievements and views, three themes seem to arise concerning the central features that effect elementary school students’ experience of learning science from ‘‘Atom Surprise’’: 1.

2.

3.

A holistic learning experience—The narrative, visual and audial aspects of the play are essential and inseparable from the learning experiences. Children were very sensitive to affective aspects of the narrative, the characters’ personalities, and interactions between the characters. Humor and laughter are an important component of the play.

These three themes have been discussed in the literature in the context of other learning environments. The importance of coordination between visual and verbal presentation has been recommended by Khalil et al. (2005), the importance of visual thinking in science education by Mathewson (1999) and the aid of movement and acting on memory and learning by Solomon (2002). Hadzigeorgiou (2006) and Stinner (1995) stressed the advantages of narrative while Solomon (2002) further suggested that creating empathy is a key aspect to learning from stories. Finally the use of humour in the classrooms, in lectures and in science cartoons has generally shown to have positive cognitive and affective outcomes (Garner 2006; Rule and Auge 2005). This is probably due to positive psychological and physiological effects on learners, which increase interest and consequently improve recall abilities (Garner 2006). It seems that the play has successfully managed to integrate these three elements and that they have had a positive effect on the affective and cognitive outcomes. It is worth noting that a part of the play that lacked these components, namely the John Dalton scene, was not easily recalled by the viewers. A subtle yet important point to make concerning the data is that when the students were asked what they liked or disliked about the play (Table 4) virtually all comments related to the theatrical elements of the play such as the story, the characters or the props. Hardly any comments were made on the scientific content. Yet when asked what

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:508–524

they remembered from the play (Table 4) a significant amount of comments (30 and 21%) related to the science content. While the children could recall scientific facts, when asked to relate to the play emotionally they mainly reacted to the theatrical elements. The study was conducted under certain limitations. The first limitation, discussed earlier, was that one of the researchers is also an actor and a co-writer in the play. As mentioned earlier this could be a limitation due to the children’s will to appease the researcher. However, it could also be an advantage since it allowed the researcher a good grasp of the play and the different element comprising it, which in terms allowed interviews to be profound. A second limitation was that in the public school data collection was restricted and thus that data is not as rich as that collected in the private school. Almost all the affective data is from the private school. This limits the comparison that can be made between the two settings. A further limitation is that the play studied is only one option of presenting the subject on stage. For practical reasons, this research did not chose a design based approach in which the artistic decisions could have been tested (one of the actors could have changed characters and play one of the unseen characters, for example). Furthermore, another limitation lies in the very nature, and magic, of theatre. Every play is a unique occurrence and depends on an infinite amount of factors such as the mood of the actors, the composition of the audience, the conditions in which the play is watched (lighting, temperature), etc. Whilst it is usually in the interest of the director and the actors to try and run according to a fixed plan (hence the importance of rehearsals), every performance is unique. This might also impede the generalisability of the findings. It is hope that the in-depth nature of the study and the multitude of tools has made it possible to build a rich picture of the two idiosyncratic plays presented. Acknowledgment Ayelet Baram-Tsabari would like to thank the Landau Fellowship for supporting her research. Ran Peleg would like to thank the Papo Fellowship and Mitrani Fellowship for supporting and enabling his research. This research was inspired by the EU S-TEAM project: Science-teacher education advanced methods (no. 234870).

References Aikenhead GS (2004) The humanistic and cultural aspects of science & technology. Paper presented at the 11th International Organization for Science and Technology Education (IOSTE) Symposium, Lublin, Poland Alsop S (2001) Seeking emotional involvement in science education: food-chains and webs. Sch Sci Rev 83(302):63–68 Anderson D, Lucas KB (1997) The effectiveness of orienting students to the physical features of a science museum prior to visitation. Res Sci Educ 27(4):485–495

523 Anderson D, Lucas KB, Ginns IS, Dierking LD (2000) Development of knowledge about electricity and magnetism during a visit to a science museum and related post-visit activities. Sci Educ 84: 658–679 Arieli B (2007) The integration of creative drama into science teaching. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University Bamberger Y, Tal T (2007) Learning in a personal context: levels of choice in a free choice learning environment in science and natural history museums. Sci Educ 91(1):75–95 Baum L, Hughes C (2001) Ten years of evaluating science theater at the museum of science, Boston. Curator 44(4):355–369 Begoray DL, Stinner A (2005) Representing science through historical drama: Lord Kelvin and the age of the earth debate. Sci Educ 14:547–571 Braund M (1999) Electric drama to improve understanding in science. Sch Sci Rev 81(294):35–41 Casey B, Erkut S, Ceder I, Young JM (2008) Use of a storytelling context to improve girls’ and boys’ geometry skills in kindergarten. J Appl Dev Psychol 29(1):29–48 Christensen P, James A (eds) (2002) Research with children: perspectives and practices. RoutledgeFalmer, London Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K (2000) Research methods in education, 5th edn. RoutledgeFalmer, London Driver R, Squires A, Rushworth P, Wood-Robinson V (1994) Making sense of secondary science. Routledge, London Eshach H (2007) Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: formal, non-formal, and informal education. J Sci Educ Technol 16(2):171–190 Eshach H, Fried MN (2005) Should science be taught in early childhood? J Sci Educ Technol 14(3):315–336 Falk J, Storksdieck M (2005) Using the contextual model of learning to understand visitor learning from a science center exhibition. Sci Educ 89(5):744–778 Feingold B-A (1996) Why drama? Education and theater. Itav— publishing house [in Hebrew], Tel Aviv Garner RL (2006) Humor in pedagogy: how ha-ha can lead to aha!. Coll Teach 54(1):177–180 Hadzigeorgiou Y (2006) Humanizing the teaching of physics through storytelling: the case of current electricity. Phys Educ 41(1): 42–46 Halpern MK (2008) Understanding how audiences understand science on stage: cultural context in the dramatization of Darwin’s letters. Paper presented at the AEJMC, Chicago Hofstein A, Rosenfeld S (1996) Bridging the gap between formal and informal science learning. Stud Sci Educ 28:87–112 Hughes C, Jackson A, Kidd J (2007) The role of theatre in museums and historic sites: visitors, audiences and learners. In: Bresler L (ed) International handbook of research in arts education. Springer, Dordrecht Immordino-Yang MH, Damasio A (2007) We feel, therefore we learn: the relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind Brain Educ 1(1):3 Ingleton C (1999) Emotion in learning: a neglected dynamic. HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne Khalil MK, Paas F, Johnson TE, Payer AF (2005) Interactive and dynamic visualizations in teaching and learning of anatomy: a cognitive load perspective. Anat Rec B New Anat 286B(1):8–14 Klepaker T, Almendingen SF, Tveita J (2007) Young Norwegian students’ preferences for learning activities and the influence of these activities on the students’ attitudes to and performance in science. NorDiNa 1:45–56 Kofoed MH (2006) The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs: role-play and students’ interest in physics. Phys Educ 41(6):502–506 Laugksch RC (2000) Scientific literacy: a conceptual overview. Sci Educ 84(1):71–94

123

524 Littledyke M (2008) Science education for environmental awareness: approaches to integrating cognitive and affective domains. Environ Educ Res 14(1):1–17 Maltese AV, Tai RH (2010) Eyeballs in the fridge: sources of early interes in science. Int J Sci Educ 32(5):669–685 Marshall C, Rossman GB (2006) Designing qualitative research, 4th edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks Mathewson JH (1999) Visual-spatial thinking: an aspect of science overlooked by educators. Sci Educ 83:33–54 McSharry G, Jones S (2000) Role-play in science teaching and learning. Sch Sci Rev 82(298):73–82 Metcalfe RJA, Abbott S, Bray P, Exley J, Wisnia D (1984) Teaching science through drama: an empirical investigation. Res Sci Technol Educ 2(1):77–81 Meyer H (2005) Is it molecules? Again! A review of students’ learning about particle theory. Chem Educ J 9(2). http://chem. sci.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp/v9n2/HMeyer/HMeyer.html Millar R, Osborne J (eds) (1998) Beyond 2000: science education for the future. King’s College, University of London Ministry of Education (2005) National curriculum in science and technology for elementary schools. Available at http://cms.education. gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/Tochniyot_Limudim/science_tech/ Techanim/Chomarim/ Murphy C, Beggs J (2001) Pupil’s attitudes, perceptions and understanding of primary science: comparisons between Northern Irish and English schools, Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association. University of Leeds, England Nakhleh MB, Samarapungavan A (1999) Elementary school children’s beliefs about matter. J Res Sci Teach 36(7):777–805 National Academies of Science (2009) Learning science in informal environments: people, places, and pursuits. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments, National Research Council, Washington, DC National Reseach Council (2009) Learning science in informal environments: people, places, and pursuits. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12190 O’Toole J (1976) Theatre in education. Hodder and Stoughton, London Ødegaard M (2003) Dramatic science. A critical review of drama in science education. Stud Sci Educ 39(1):75–101 Orion N (1993) A model for the development and implementation of field trips as an integral part of the science curriculum. Sch Sci Math 93(6):325–331 Orion N, Hofstein A, Tamir P, Giddings GJ (1997) Development and validation of an instrument for assessing the learning environment of outdoor science activities. Sci Educ 81(2):161–171 Osborne J, Dillon J (2008) Science education in Europe: critical reflections. A report to the Nuffield Foundation

123

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:508–524 Pell T, Jarvis T (2001) Developing attitude to science scales for use with children of ages from five to eleven years. Int J Sci Educ 23(8):847–862 Redington C (1983) Can theatre teach? An historical and evaluative analysis of theatre in education. Pergamon Press Ltd, Oxford, UK Reiss MJ (2005) The importance of affect in science education. In: Alsop S (ed) Beyond Cartesian dualism. Encountering Affect in the Teaching and Learning of Science. Springer, Netherlands Rockman E et al (1996) Evaluation of the Bill Nye the Science Guy television series and outreach. Rockman et al, San Francisco, California Rule AC, Auge J (2005) Using Humorous Cartoons to teach mineral and rock concepts in sixth grade science class. J Geosci Edu 53(5):548–558 Schonmann S (1995) Theatre of the classroom. Cherikover, Tel Aviv Schonmann S (2006) Theatre as a medium for children and young people: images and observations. Springer, Dordrecht Scott J (2002) Children as respondents: the challenge for quantitative methods. In: Christensen P, James A (eds) Research with children: perspectives and practices. RoutledgeFalmer, London Solomon J (2002) Science stories and science texts: what can they do for our students? Stud Sci Educ 37(1):85–105 Stinner A (1995) Contextual settings, science stories, and large context problems: towards a more humanistic science education. Sci Educ 79(5):555–581 Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (1998) Mixed methodology. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks The Royal Society (2004) Taking a leading role: scientists survey. Retrieved October 3, 2010, from http://royalsociety.org/ Taking-a-leading-role-scientists-survey/ Thompson J (2006) Applied theatre: bewilderment and beyond, 2nd edn. Peter Lang, Oxford, New York Tveita J (2000) Helping students to understand the electron model for simple circuits by use of a drama model and other untraditional learning methods. Available at http://fysikk.hfk.vgs.no/johannest veitapaper.doc [2009, 25 April] Urian D (2008) Theatre in society. Open University Press [in Hebrew], Raanana, Israel West A, Hailes J, Sammons P (1997) Children’s attitudes to the National Curriculum at Key Stage 1. Br Educ Res J 23(5): 597–613 Wilson E (1994) The theater experience, 6th edn. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York City Yechieli T, Nussbaum J (2002) The structure of matter: vacuum and particles—teacher’s guide. Matmon, Israel Yoon H-G (2006) The nature of science drama in science education. Paper presented at the the 9th international conference on public communication of science and technology (PCST-9). Seoul, Korea