Insights about what comes naturally to learners when thinking about energy

The below are some of the insights we have accumulated so far in our work in the Energy Project.  You're not responsible for memorizing or even agreeing with these; we're just sharing what we think we've seen so far.  Please do not cite or distribute these statements... they're not at that stage yet.

1.   There seems to be a strong dividing line in many people’s minds between what we call “energy we care about” and “energy we learn about.”  That is, people seem to think about energy very differently depending on whether it is a science-class context or colloquial conversation, news, politics, etc.  If learners see themselves as being in a science-class context, their thinking tends to be more limited and their confidence tends to be lower.  In a real-world/non-school context, on the other hand, learners contribute creatively, prolifically, and confidently.  For example, in the summer class for elementary teachers last June, ideas like “solar energy” and “energy efficiency” were exciting and engaging to most of the participants, but when the conversation began to be about more textbook-like physics problems, some participants seemed intimidated or turned off by it – as if it reminded them that they don’t actually know very much.  We have also observed that YouTube videos that raise energy issues can inspire passionate discussions among commenters.

2.   There seem to be at least two intuitive metaphors for energy: as a “substance” and as an “activation.”  In the substance metaphor, objects are containers, and energy can fill the containers.  This metaphor supports ideas of conservation, flow, transfer, storage, etc, which are among our primary learning goals.  In the “activation” metaphor, objects can be energized – “turned on” by energy.  This metaphor does not support ideas of conservation but does support ideas of causation – that energy makes things happen.  It also supports the idea of energy having observable effects (motion, light, heat, etc.).

3.   Learners sometimes think of energy as a characteristic property of an object or material.  In particular, what form(s) of energy is appropriate to that object is a characteristic property.  For example, elastic energy is confused with elasticity: a rubber band is seen as having elastic energy even when unstretched because elastic energy is the same as elasticity, which is a property of the material.  In this way of thinking, a rubber band would not have (say) kinetic energy, because a rubber band is not that type of thing.  Kinetic energy would be a property of wheels or similar things.  

4.   Learners seem to think of “potential energy” as an absence or latency of energy (rather than a kind of energy, as we do).  In the substance metaphor, the potential energy (or just “potential,” or “energy potential”) is the unfilled space in the object-container, which can “potentially” be filled by energy.  In the activation metaphor, the potential energy is the ability of an object to have a certain type of energy – for example, a light bulb might have “light energy” when it is on and “light potential” when it is off.  Both of these uses are consistent with everyday meanings of the term “potentially” (“possibly” or “maybe”), and with the idea that people can “reach their potential” (“fulfill their capacity”).

5.   Student thinking about energy is in some cases “accomplishment-oriented.” That is, energy is used to do things, or make things. Learners are often not sure when energy is coming into a system, or going out, or appearing after being stored within. They tend to be most comfortable with the idea that it is passed on from one object to the next (as it might appear to be in a Rube Goldberg machine), more than the idea that energy is stored within or comes in or goes out. In this sense, energy seems to be a linear propagation of causal power until it achieves its goal and is extinguished, perhaps like fire in a line of gunpowder.

6.   In a symbolic system such as Energy Theater in which energy is associated with specific objects, students can have a hard time keeping the energy and the object straight.  In Energy Theater, they often (accidentally?) assign themselves to be objects instead of chunks of energy.  We think this may be because it’s more natural to think of an object as a thing than it is to think of energy as a thing.  It may also be partly due to learners thinking of energy as a characteristic property of an object or material (see above).  The problem with not thinking of energy as a thing is that learners lose track of the energy, and don’t conserve it.