- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Open Access

Student understanding of the apparent motion of the Sun: Insights from an in-depth interview study

Rebecca Raskin1,*, Wim Van Dooren2, Hans Van Winckel3, and Mieke De Cock1

  • 1Department of Physics and Astronomy & LESEC & LIVO, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200c–box 2406, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
  • 2Centre for Instructional Psychology and Technology & LIVO, KU Leuven, Dekenstraat 2–box 3773, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
  • 3Department of Physics and Astronomy, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200d–box 2401, 3001 Leuven, Belgium

  • *Contact author: rebecca.raskin@kuleuven.be
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020144 – Published 9 October, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/mtbf-vy62

Abstract

Despite daily observations of the Sun, many students continue to struggle with the mechanisms explaining its apparent motion. Even after formal instruction, students often develop only fragmentary understandings and construct alternative mental models. This study investigates these models in depth to gain genuine insight into the knowledge structures students develop regarding the Sun’s apparent motion. We conducted individual task-based think-aloud interviews with 16–18-year-olds in which they articulated their mental models verbally, through drawings and by using three-dimensional materials. These explanations were then analyzed to determine whether the mental models included the essential elements, characteristics, and connections consistent with scientific understanding. The analysis showed that students often described individual aspects of the phenomenon correctly, but rarely provided adequate allocentric explanations. Missing components in their models were frequently supplemented with alternative ideas that clustered around five themes: cardinal directions, distance, orientation of Earth’s axis, lines of sight and sunrays, and the orientation of the Sun’s orbital plane. These themes, the variety within each, and the implications of our findings are discussed in detail.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (36)

  1. S. Vosniadou and W. F. Brewer, Mental models of the day/night cycle, Cogn. Sci. 18, 123 (1994).
  2. H. Bekaert, A. Steegen, H. Van Winckel, W. Van Dooren, M. Nicolini, A. C. Sippel, C. Staikidis, I. Thiering, and M. De Cock, Comparing students’ knowledge of the apparent motion of the Sun and stars across four European countries, Astron. Educ. J. 2 (2022).
  3. H. Bekaert, M. De Cock, W. Van Dooren, and H. Van Winckel, Investigating students’ insight after attending a planetarium presentation about the apparent motion of the Sun and stars, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010141 (2024).
  4. J. D. Plummer, A. Kocareli, and C. Slagle, Learning to explain astronomy across moving frames of reference: Exploring the role of classroom and planetarium-based instructional contexts, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 36, 1083 (2014).
  5. J. D. Plummer, C. A. Bower, and L. S. Liben, The role of perspective taking in how children connect reference frames when explaining astronomical phenomena, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 38, 345 (2016).
  6. R. Trumper, Assessing students’ basic astronomy conceptions from junior high school through university, Aust. Sci. Teach. J. 47, 21 (2001), https://kuleuven.e-bronnen.be/login?, https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/assessing-students-basic-astronomy-conceptions/docview/194494384/se-2.
  7. R. Trumper, A cross-age study of senior high school students’ conceptions of basic astronomy concepts, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 19, 97 (2010).
  8. R. Trumper, Teaching future teachers basic astronomy concepts—seasonal changes—at a time of reform in science education, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 43, 879 (2006).
  9. H. Bekaert, H. Van Winckel, W. Van Dooren, A. Steegen, and M. De Cock, Identifying students’ mental models of the apparent motion of the Sun and stars, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010130 (2022).
  10. H. Bekaert, H. Van Winckel, W. Van Dooren, A. Steegen, and M. De Cock, Design and validation of an instrument to test students’ understanding of the apparent motion of the Sun and stars, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020135 (2020).
  11. S. Vosniadou and W. F. Brewer, Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood, Cogn. Psychol. 24, 535 (1992).
  12. J. Baxter, Children’s understanding of familiar astronomical events, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 11, 502 (1989).
  13. A. Lightman and P. M. Sadler, Teacher predictions versus actual student gains, Phys. Teach. 31, 162 (1993).
  14. P. M. Sadler, Psychometric models of student conceptions in science: Reconciling qualitative studies and distractor-driven assessment instruments, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 35, 265 (1998).
  15. R. Trumper, University students’ conceptions of basic astronomy concepts, Phys. Educ. 35, 9 (2000).
  16. H. Kalkan and K. Kiroğlu, Science and nonscience students’ ideas about basic astronomy concepts in preservice training for elementary school teachers, Astron. Educ. Rev. 6, 15 (2007).
  17. A. Chiras and N. Valanides, Day/night cycle: Mental models of primary school children, Sci. Educ. Int. 19, 65 (2008), https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ890625.pdf.
  18. J. D. Plummer, P. Udomprasert, A. Vaishampayan, S. Sunbury, K. Cho, H. Houghton, E. Johnson, E. Wright, P. M. Sadler, and A. Goodman, Learning to think spatially through curricula that embed spatial training, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 59, 1134 (2022).
  19. R. K. Atwood and V. A. Atwood, Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the causes of seasons, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 33, 553 (1996).
  20. U. Kanli, A study on identifying the misconceptions of pre-service and in-service teachers about basic astronomy concepts, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 10, 471 (2014).
  21. E. V. Slater, J. E. Morris, and D. McKinnon, Astronomy alternative conceptions in pre-adolescent students in Western Australia, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 40, 2158 (2018).
  22. J. D. Plummer, A cross-age study of children’s knowledge of apparent celestial motion, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 31, 1571 (2009).
  23. J. D. Plummer, Early elementary students’ development of astronomy concepts in the planetarium, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 46, 192 (2009).
  24. J. D. Plummer and L. Maynard, Building a learning progression for celestial motion: An exploration of students’ reasoning about the seasons, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 51, 902 (2014).
  25. L. Rodrigues, M. Montenegro, and A. Meneses, Mapping the astronomy content knowledge of chilean in-service teachers, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 45, 451 (2023).
  26. M. Zeilik, C. Schau, and N. Mattern, Misconceptions and their change in university-level astronomy courses, Phys. Teach. 36, 104 (1998).
  27. I. M. Greca and M. A. Moreira, Beyond the detection of students’ mental models. An integrative representational approach, CORE (2002).
  28. W. Rumite, P. Purwanto, I. N. Parta, and S. Rahardjo, Unpacking mental models, strategies, and schemas pre-service mathematics teacher in solving maximum rectangular areas, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 19, em2309 (2023).
  29. P. Machamer, L. Darden, and C. F. Craver, Thinking about mechanisms, Philos. Sci. 67, 1 (2000).
  30. G. Chiou and O. R. Anderson, A study of undergraduate physics students’ understanding of heat conduction based on mental model theory and an ontology–process analysis, Sci. Educ. 94, 825 (2010).
  31. R. Duit and D. F. Treagust, Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 671 (2003).
  32. S. Vosniadou, Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change, Learn. Instr. 4, 45 (1994).
  33. L. A. Barth-Cohen, S. K. Braden, T. G. Young, and S. Gailey, Reasoning with evidence while modeling: Successes at the middle school level, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020106 (2021).
  34. T. Neidorf, A. Arora, E. Erberber, Y. Tsokodayi, and T. Mai, Review of research into misconceptions and misunderstandings in physics and mathematics, in Student Misconceptions and Errors in Physics and Mathematics: Exploring Data from TIMSS and TIMSS Advanced, IEA Research for Education (Springer, New York, 2020), Vol. 9, pp. 11–20.
  35. C. L. Boness and K. J. Sher, The case for cognitive interviewing in survey item validation: A useful approach for improving the measurement and assessment of substance use disorders, J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 81, 401 (2020).
  36. E. D. Corpuz and N. S. Rebello, Investigating students’ mental models and knowledge construction of microscopic friction. I. Implications for curriculum design and development, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 020102 (2011).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020144– Published 9 October, 2026
  • Received 12 March 2026
  • Accepted 9 September 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation