When the participants are planning what to will happen (and when they are actually doing it), they run into problems, and their solutions often violate the representational rules that have been established. For example, one group that I watched felt that they didn't have enough people to do everything that they wanted. When energy was leaving one object, they wanted it to go into the air and turn into light and air, and they thought that the person representing that energy could make both symbols at the same time. The instructor reminded them the each energy unit could only be one kind of energy, because otherwise it might convey the concept that energy can have two forms simultaneously. The reinforcing of the rules helps maintain the benefits of Energy Theater: that energy always has to go somewhere and have a form, etc.
The other role is watching the energy theater and "reading it back" to the participants. That is, they tell the participants what theater is communicating to the instructors. This helps the participants see where they still have holes. For example, one group's energy theater for a chair being pushed across the floor by a person had energy going from the person into both the chair and the floor simultaneously. When the instructor pointed out that their theater showed energy going directly from the person to the floor, the participants decided that all the energy had to flow through the chair before going into the floor or air.
These both seem very important to me, well worth articulating, and not at all obvious. Last year we weren't doing either one of them (or not as much as now).
ReplyDeleteyeah, this is what i think i am trying to do, as an instructor.
ReplyDeleteI find interesting that you and another post point out that people want two energies in one person. You call it an issue of representation. Is it? I'm used to solving problems with potential and kinetic energy, in a single object. Is the desire to have one person represent two energies a desire to represent the object and not the energy? Or is it a proportional reasoning issue, needing one person to fulfill two roles, with scaling being a proem as energy flows to multiple objects?
ReplyDeleteSorry to ask in ignorance from a distance. I'm trying to work out the metaphors in use. And typos come from late night iPod typing. Sorry bout those, if I missed them.
yes, michael, would you please step a little closer and bring your ignorance within slapping distance.
ReplyDeleteI think Michael raises a good point. When a person wants to be two types of energy at once, I don't actually know whether the problem is conceptual or representational. I did assume that the rule that a person can only be one type of energy was important because it ensures that energy is conserved: if you are kinetic energy and then enter an object and transform into light and sound, the idea that there is still the same amount of energy could be obscured. However, I don't know whether the usefulness of this rule to the participants is obvious or not.
ReplyDeleteToday Dan was drawing PET diagrams and a participant asked if you could have two types of energy in a single circle. Dan suggested that instead you should draw a second box for the same object with a new circle for the other type of energy.
ReplyDelete