Insights and updates from Interdisciplinary Research Institute in STEM Education (I-RISE) Scholars, directors, and collaborators
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Paper ideas
Everybody please use the comment space to record ideas for papers you can envision based on what's happening so far. At this point, it can be directions for analysis rather than actual claims, if you want. I'll start.
Connecting "energy we learn about" to "energy we care about": Entropy and sustainability in learner discourse. Data: Whatever happens during Lane's sustainability activity. Who will do it: Warren, when he visits the week after Thanksgiving.
where's the mechanism in energy? - something about when we do and don't use energy to "make sense" of something.
inside-out v. outside-in trajectories -- this really resonates with my inquiry class -- planning an instructional sequence that makes sense from the inside (when you don't know the final form of the science) rather than the outside (where you do. see my notes today on stamatis's v. hunter's questioning styles and what it means to be ready to "move on"). seems like "authentic" inquiry will have to be inside-out.
think-then-talker v. talk-then-thinker and morality (this comes up in my inquiry class, too, and one student described it as feeling "unsafe") I don't know what to do. In a class I've taught we use a "talking stick" of sorts. This is what I've been calling the "scientific substance of classroom management" in a grant proposal! - what seems like "just" management is huge.
ah so the "where's the mechanism in energy" - it would be interesting to look at how groups start to answer the Gaussian Gun question to identify when and where they talk energy v. force.
inside-out v. outside-in, would be interesting to compare Stamatis and Hunter's questions.
think-then-talk, I can picture conversations from my inquiry class quite easily. There was some of that on Monday here too?
"Logical" instruction and "organic" instruction: What they are, the motives for each, how to tell them apart observationally, and the effect of each on learners. Data: Instructional interactions of the two types. Maybe E2 vs. E1 generally, depending on how things go.
Different attempts in teaching or maybe better "facilitating" energy theater. I feel like the "inside-out" vs. "outside-in" approach could also work, here...
Not a paper idea, but just a comment. It took me a second to realize the title of the post was along the lines of: "note article ideas" and not: "cd notebook nightmares."
Specific mind-blowing example of inside-out vs. outside-in: Lisa going all "teacherly" on Lezlie this afternoon in the potential energy conversation, asking her obnoxious leading questions, when Stamatis had spent the hour before lunch doing the same thing to her. Meanwhile, Hunter, running the class, makes extremely rare, primarily epistemological interventions.
Inside-out vs. outside-in, Leslie defined as "when you have the final form of the science in mind" vs. "when you don't" - a related way to think of this would be in terms of the goal of the questions you ask: To draw the group toward a conclusion that is known by you but not them (vs.) to help them make progress toward their own conclusion, whatever that might be.
Joel seems very teacherly, outside-in with his participation at Table 6 and I think it's a protective mechanism - a way of controlling the conversation to stay with what you know. I think this can be true when teaching as well.
I think this inside-out vs. outside-in distinction is similar to the distinction Hunter makes between Aristotelian and Platonic theories of teaching. Platonists focus on the ideal, correct physics idea (outside) and Aristotelians (inside) focus on on the actual phenomenon of student thinking as an interesting thing to pay attention to.
But there's not an exact correspondence. Traditional physics teaching is purely Platonic. Both PEG-style teaching (outside-in) and Hunter-style teaching (inside-out) are Aristotelian in that they pay attention to the inside, but Hunter's style is more radical in starting from the inside.
Yes (to Rachel's last comment - 3:17) table 6 in the a.m. began to talk about pulling masses apart and adding energy and wondering why you keep adding energy even when they're so far apart. This is where Joel added something (that wasn't really taken up by the group).
I think (see Sam's comment) that we see Hunter's teaching as radical b/c it's rare in PER but I want to flag that this isn't altogether rare in science ed. I think that Schauble and Lehrer show fantastic examples of this kind of teaching in a range of settings. And David Hammer, too. And Paul Hutchison, Deborah Ball. (Just to be the voice that says "there's a lot of work on this very thing in the science ed literature" because Rosemary would be mad at me if I didn't ! :)
Good point, Leslie. I think the counterpoint to this is that traditional instruction in physics is *so* backwards that this kind of teaching really is radical in physics, even if it's not in other contexts. And I would guess that even in K-12 teaching it's rare: Even though there are lots of examples of it in the research literature, these examples aren't typical.
I want to say here on this blog that I hope everyone who cares to observe me trying to teach reads the Algebra Project PERC paper I wrote. I would wager a few bucks, like... four, that the theoretical perspective it uses is not essentially the same as any out there in the science ed literature, not that I know that lit. I mean the whole Quine and then Moses bit.
(I guess basically I what I am doing is offering someone four bucks to do the work of confirming the existence or not of the same theoretical motivation already in the literature. Seems like a good deal.)
I just read the PERC paper -- should have earlier. That feels one level up from what I'm thinking about -- there's some commitment to what it is to teach that precedes Quine (and then Moses) - I think it has to do with something you (Hunter) said about "I wanted to stop Person A from trying to fix Person B." - It felt like that was the theoretical commitment (or hints at a theoretical commitment) that precedes all of the quine/moses theory. Teaching not as fixing. And I think of Schauble, Lehrer, Hammer, Ball, etc. as having that kind of leaning.
... anyway, it's too late and I'm still not sure I know what I'm thinking, except to say that I've really really been enjoying myself and loving the class.
Learners' use of conceptual metaphors for energy. Data: All along, but critically on Metaphor Day (Wed 8/4).
ReplyDeleteConnecting "energy we learn about" to "energy we care about": Entropy and sustainability in learner discourse. Data: Whatever happens during Lane's sustainability activity. Who will do it: Warren, when he visits the week after Thanksgiving.
ReplyDeletePaper ideas:
ReplyDeletewhere's the mechanism in energy? - something about when we do and don't use energy to "make sense" of something.
inside-out v. outside-in trajectories -- this really resonates with my inquiry class -- planning an instructional sequence that makes sense from the inside (when you don't know the final form of the science) rather than the outside (where you do. see my notes today on stamatis's v. hunter's questioning styles and what it means to be ready to "move on"). seems like "authentic" inquiry will have to be inside-out.
think-then-talker v. talk-then-thinker and morality (this comes up in my inquiry class, too, and one student described it as feeling "unsafe") I don't know what to do. In a class I've taught we use a "talking stick" of sorts. This is what I've been calling the "scientific substance of classroom management" in a grant proposal! - what seems like "just" management is huge.
ah so the "where's the mechanism in energy" - it would be interesting to look at how groups start to answer the Gaussian Gun question to identify when and where they talk energy v. force.
ReplyDeleteinside-out v. outside-in, would be interesting to compare Stamatis and Hunter's questions.
think-then-talk, I can picture conversations from my inquiry class quite easily. There was some of that on Monday here too?
"Logical" instruction and "organic" instruction: What they are, the motives for each, how to tell them apart observationally, and the effect of each on learners. Data: Instructional interactions of the two types. Maybe E2 vs. E1 generally, depending on how things go.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDifferent attempts in teaching or maybe better "facilitating" energy theater. I feel like the "inside-out" vs. "outside-in" approach could also work, here...
ReplyDeleteNot a paper idea, but just a comment. It took me a second to realize the title of the post was along the lines of: "note article ideas" and not: "cd notebook nightmares."
ReplyDeleteSpecific mind-blowing example of inside-out vs. outside-in: Lisa going all "teacherly" on Lezlie this afternoon in the potential energy conversation, asking her obnoxious leading questions, when Stamatis had spent the hour before lunch doing the same thing to her. Meanwhile, Hunter, running the class, makes extremely rare, primarily epistemological interventions.
ReplyDeleteInside-out vs. outside-in, Leslie defined as "when you have the final form of the science in mind" vs. "when you don't" - a related way to think of this would be in terms of the goal of the questions you ask: To draw the group toward a conclusion that is known by you but not them (vs.) to help them make progress toward their own conclusion, whatever that might be.
Joel seems very teacherly, outside-in with his participation at Table 6 and I think it's a protective mechanism - a way of controlling the conversation to stay with what you know. I think this can be true when teaching as well.
ReplyDeleteInventing the need for negative potential energy, such as that need is. Data: Wed 8/5 killer conversation, afternoon (began in the morning).
ReplyDeleteI think this inside-out vs. outside-in distinction is similar to the distinction Hunter makes between Aristotelian and Platonic theories of teaching. Platonists focus on the ideal, correct physics idea (outside) and Aristotelians (inside) focus on on the actual phenomenon of student thinking as an interesting thing to pay attention to.
ReplyDeleteBut there's not an exact correspondence. Traditional physics teaching is purely Platonic. Both PEG-style teaching (outside-in) and Hunter-style teaching (inside-out) are Aristotelian in that they pay attention to the inside, but Hunter's style is more radical in starting from the inside.
Yes (to Rachel's last comment - 3:17) table 6 in the a.m. began to talk about pulling masses apart and adding energy and wondering why you keep adding energy even when they're so far apart. This is where Joel added something (that wasn't really taken up by the group).
ReplyDeleteSam, this is awesome, you're already providing a lit-review for this paper ;-)
ReplyDeleteI think (see Sam's comment) that we see Hunter's teaching as radical b/c it's rare in PER but I want to flag that this isn't altogether rare in science ed. I think that Schauble and Lehrer show fantastic examples of this kind of teaching in a range of settings. And David Hammer, too. And Paul Hutchison, Deborah Ball. (Just to be the voice that says "there's a lot of work on this very thing in the science ed literature" because Rosemary would be mad at me if I didn't ! :)
ReplyDeleteGood point, Leslie. I think the counterpoint to this is that traditional instruction in physics is *so* backwards that this kind of teaching really is radical in physics, even if it's not in other contexts. And I would guess that even in K-12 teaching it's rare: Even though there are lots of examples of it in the research literature, these examples aren't typical.
ReplyDeleteI want to say here on this blog that I hope everyone who cares to observe me trying to teach reads the Algebra Project PERC paper I wrote. I would wager a few bucks, like... four, that the theoretical perspective it uses is not essentially the same as any out there in the science ed literature, not that I know that lit. I mean the whole Quine and then Moses bit.
ReplyDelete(I guess basically I what I am doing is offering someone four bucks to do the work of confirming the existence or not of the same theoretical motivation already in the literature. Seems like a good deal.)
Using The Algebra Project Method To Regiment Discourse In An Energy Course for Teachers.
ReplyDeleteI just read the PERC paper -- should have earlier. That feels one level up from what I'm thinking about -- there's some commitment to what it is to teach that precedes Quine (and then Moses) - I think it has to do with something you (Hunter) said about "I wanted to stop Person A from trying to fix Person B." - It felt like that was the theoretical commitment (or hints at a theoretical commitment) that precedes all of the quine/moses theory. Teaching not as fixing. And I think of Schauble, Lehrer, Hammer, Ball, etc. as having that kind of leaning.
ReplyDelete... anyway, it's too late and I'm still not sure I know what I'm thinking, except to say that I've really really been enjoying myself and loving the class.