Comparative analysis

We understand that during this journey happened very significant changes in the way children represent the Sun and they provide clues that will lead us to a better understanding the impact of the action on understanding the concept of the Sun by children. A comprehensive analysis of the three moments is required.

We consider that the main features of the 1st moment can be summarized by creativity (understood in the sense of diversity), resulting from anthropomorphising and its identification with the individual-designer; the 2nd moment is the representation that is highlighted, very specifically the representation of the phenomenon of sunspots - the only phenomenon really visible; and in the 3rd moment we find a combination, a juxtaposition of the characteristics of previous times.

By doing this analysis some issues arose, such as: why is the first moment more diverse? And why do we find a huge variety of colours? At the 2nd moment the drawings represent the Sun or a specific phenomenon of the Sun (the sunspots)? Why are the sun rays present in the 1st moment, become less representative in the 2nd moment, only to reappear later? Why this change in the circular shape of the Sun throughout the three moments?

The diversity found in the early drawings brings us to the question of iconicity, cited in the previous section. What children represent is the meaning they attribute to the Sun, projected in the drawing they make.

We are faced with a sign, where the signs are resources that individuals use and adapt to construct meaning. We can conclude that the children built their own, individualized meaning, mirroring in the graphical representation their own ideas and assigning a meaning to the Sun, an expression of the child, his own image, hence the diversity and creativity observed. This process explains the freedom of the use of colour and detail, reflections of the author's expression.

The representativity found in the 2nd moment is the perceived face of the phenomenon found, sunspots, which therefore made the drawing an interpretative picture. Interpretation is always a process between understanding and explanation. The drawing reveals by one hand understanding of the phenomenon but also it integrates the transmission/explanation attempt to others. Thus, the attempt of similarity takes precedence.

On the 3rd moment we find a juxtaposition of some of the features in the images done in previous times.

One of the characteristics that deserves careful analysis relates to the solar rays, very present initially, then disappearing almost entirely and reappearing in the 3rd moment, even if less exuberant. The function assigned to the solar rays varies, the first images appear as "hair" on anthropomorphic figure of the Sun, losing expression in the 2nd moment because they were not observed at all. Come up again in the 3rd moment not as "hair", but as a finding of daily observation of the Sun, whose rays gain visibility by crossing our atmosphere. There is a juxtaposition between the information resulting from the daily observation with the information from

the observational session. Some drawings integrate with equal preponderance, both observational informations. The question of form is equally interesting. Initially very circular to represent a face, losing its perfect geometry in the 2nd time, perhaps because the focus is primarily on representing sunspots. An increased expression of circular shape reappears on the 3rd time. At that moment all drawings that have solar rays are circular and all who are not circular have no sunrays. It matters now to question if all that aren't circular, have spots? We seek this relationship between sunrays, shape, spots and found that those who are not circular have spots. That means they are not circular because of the interest of representing sunspots, thus confirming what we have already seen. We can, however, assume (a more detailed study is required to conclude) that the drawings where the integration is done, wherever spots and rays are represented, are performed in a single process where the image of the Sun created includes two phenomena: an inner and another outside. Thus, the border outlining is of particular relevance.

Regarding colour, we observe gradual changes, ranging from a wide variety and then an overpower of the yellow and finally to converge in representations especially dichromatic (two colours, yellow and orange). This development enhances recovery, the 3rd time, of the creative component to complement the representative.

4. Conclusions

Two major conclusions can be drawn from this brief study. The Sun has evolved from an intangible object, from the field of

denotation, from creative representation and capable of assigning symbolic meanings to an observable object, with characteristics of its own, not conferred by something outside, in particular the author. This new facet that the Sun acquired in the minds of children aged six and seven years, was perennial and yet not usurping the "creative" previous version, as shown by the recovery of a certain freedom in the use of colour and increasing diversity in the representations. An integrative imaging using two different sources of observational information, was formed: the data of indirect everyday observation - the sun rays; and direct observation through instruments - sunspots. The image of the Sun was enriched with new possibilities coming from a scientific observation.

Together they radically transformed the process of mental and graphical representation of a given object. The object that needed no observational information starts to require it, and its area of representation becomes to be very close to the everyday life. The Sun becomes a physical object, both in the sense of tangibility and dynamical.

Although the outcome of the session is not the same for each child, the possibility to choose between different forms of representation is in itself a value. Their range of options was enriched. Their future personal experiences will determine whether to extrapolate this experience to an intrinsic way to evaluate the world around them or not.

A first, of many, simple goal must be outlined: to enrich people with new possibilities originated in a scientific point of view of nature. Assessing the impact of a given action in the individual is a very

important step to validate and improve the action itself. Although difficult, a feedback based design of the activities of science communication is needed. These three points can and should be applied in activities that are determined to promote scientific culture, on every branch science offers. 5. References

[1] Arnheim RA. (1997) "Arte e percepção visual". Editorial Presença.

[2] Bjornavold J. (2000-b), Making learning visible – identification, assessment and recognition of non-formal learning in Europe, CEDEFOP.

[3] Bodmer WF. (1985), "The Public Understanding of Science". London: The Royal Society.

[4] Burns TW, O´Connor DJ, Stocklmayer SM. (2003) "Science Communication: a contemporary definition". Public Understanding of Science 12:183-202. [5] Chilvers J, (2013) "Reflexive

Engagement? Actors, Learning, and Reflexivity in Public Dialogue on Science and Technology", Science Communication, June 2013, vol 35, pp. 283-310.

[6] Durand G, Godinho H. (1989) "As estruturas antropológicas do imaginário: introdução à arquetipologia geral". Ed. Presença.

[7] Gonçalves ME. (2000) "Cultura Científica e Participação Pública". Oeiras: Celta Editora.

[8] Hacking MW, Goodrum D, Rennie LR. (2001) "The state of science in Australian secondary schools". Australian Science Teachers’ J. 47(4): 6–17.

[9] Haywood BK, Besley JC. "Education, outreach, and inclusive engagement: Towards integrated indicators of successful program outcomes in partici- patory science", Public Understanding of Sc. 2014 23: 92-106.

[10] Hopperstad MH. (2008) "How children make meaning through drawing and play". Visual Communication 7: 77-97. [11] Jiménez C, Mancinas R. (2009)

"Semiótica del Dibujo Infantil: una aproximación Latinoamericana sobre la influencia de la televisión en los niños: Casos de estudios en ciudades de Chile, El Salvador e México". Arte Individuo y Sociedad, 21:151-164.

[12] Joly M. (1994) "Introdução à análise da imagem". Lisboa: Edições 70.

[13] Kress G. (2003) "Literacy in the New Media Age". London: Routledge.

[14] Martins M. (2011) "O que podem as imagens, trajecto do uno ao múltiplo" in Martins ML, Miranda JB, Oliveira M, Godinho J (Editors.) "Imagem e Pensamento" Coimbra: Grácio Editor, pp. 120-135.

[15] Miller JD, Pardo R (2000) "Civic Scientific Literacy and Attitude to Science and Technology" in Dierkes M, Von Grote C (Editors.) "Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology". Amsterdam: Harwood, pp.81-129.

[16] Neresini F, Pellegrini G (2008) "Evaluating public communication of science and technology" in Bucchi M, Trench B (Editors) "Handbook of public communication of science and technology". New York: Routledge, pp. 237-51. Royal Society (1985) The Public Understanding of Science, London: Royal Society.

[17] Steiner G. (2007) "Conference Is science nearing its limits?" Lisboa, 2007 Is science nearing its limits? Conference convened by George Steiner; contribu- tors Emílio Rui Vilar. [et al.]. - Manchester: Carcanet, 2008.

[18] Ziman JM. (1984). "An introduction to science studies: the philosophical and social aspects of science and techno- logy". Cambridge: Univ. Press.

Genetic Transformation of