Printing and Saving Energy Project PERC proceedings papers

Some of you might have wondered if you can somehow print or save the PERC proceedings papers that are hosted by googleDocs on the Energy Project Hub web page. It turns out that there is a relatively easy way to do this:

1. Click on the title of the paper you want to print/save.
2. Once the document is loaded, click in the URL line of your browser and bring the cursor to the end of the URL by hitting the right arrow key of your keyboard.
3. Then add the string "&chrome=true" to the URL (without the quotation marks, and without any blanks!) an hit Enter.
4. The page reloads with Download and Print buttons at the top.

Dedra's thoughts and episodes from Friday

Ok - so this will be my last post for a while. I would have liked to have finished the transcripts for the episodes I found interesting, but as I clipped 6 today, including 20 mins of last night's instructor meeting, that's not going to happen.

I found the discussion that Rachel, Hunter, Sam, Benedikt and I had after lunch to be very fruitful. As we talked about this mechanism issue, Rachel and Hunter keyed in on an important point - this is an emotional issue - when a person is satisfied that they have found 'causation' that is really an issues of personal view. For example, do you think evaporation is a cause, or is that not a word you'd accept as a cause? I think that depends highly on whether or not you trust the person using it thoroughly understands the word (and implied agrees with your understanding). A second example: If a person says the reason this charge moved is because of that one over there, the implication of cause is coulomb's law - that may be fine unless A) you don't think the person understands electric interactions, or B) you're needing an explanation that goes deeper, like QED. But in either case - there is no 'correct' - back to the nature of science. A mechanism, cause, explanation... is only as good as it is to make the person FEEL satisfied with it...

Please add to comments on this one...

So my feelings that there is something interesting going on here with negotiation of meaning about cause and mechanism is quite tied to the fact that they feel compelled to throw out the word force in order to discuss energy. So I see a few angles here: what is mechanism, how does their meaning negotiation relate to the depth of their need for understanding/comfort/emotional state..., and what constraints is ET putting on the idea space if it is limiting them from drawing on force resources? (And it really isn't - they use force all the time... but seem to think their final 'answer' can't have force in it)

So I will mull over these things. Here's a brief synopsis of the episodes I captured today since I won't transcribe them or give them their own posts:

E1 100819 1502 Instructor meet mechanism modeling consensus.mov

This is a 24 minute clip of the instructor meeting where SV talks about being unclear with the use of the word mechanism, but I expanded it to also include the topic of consensus building. I would have to look at this fresh - but it seems very related, and at minimum starts to give the instructor side of this story. There's discussion in here about whether or not the broader physics community even has consensus about the word mechanism - an idea Hunter echoed this afternoon in an even stronger way - that it may not even be a 'scientific' term (my wording, not his).

E1 100820 0931 Tim_value_of_social_learning.mov

This was one of the first discussions of Friday morning. This is only a 3 min clip. There is a discussion going on briefly about whether to discuss things in forces vs. energy, and also the benefit of ah-ha moments, and how that solidifies ideas. (the mic quality isn't good) social learning is explicitly mentioned - but not taken up by the group as being off topic, but they discuss there being value in having the participants figure things out. they mention early frustration about the class - and whether everyone gets it now - they seem to think it's been a huge benefit. there's discussion about the instructors being aware of where things were going. I'm not sure how useful this clip is... comments of interest are brief and sound quality isn't great.

E1 100820 0931 Tim_workshop_purpose.mov

a bit later they again start talking about purpose. This clip is 8 mins long. Here they were explicitly prompted to discuss what's useful. "the instructor avoids defining any damn thing" you can't do that - need to put structure to it.. but need to give kids genuine opportunities to put ideas together on their own and be the guide on the side, and (compare formulations around the room). they're talking explicitly about the content and activities in the workshop really helped promote the kind of conversations they needed - brought out their ideas - gained fundamental insights about how energy works... consensus making process is great - they talk here about the need for MORE consensus... they also talk about tricking the students into thinking some meta-discussion is a 'fun side discussion' (my words) so the students are engaged thinking they're stealing time away from boring stuff, but it's actually the discussion the teacher wants them to have. I find this really ironic because IT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING in the moment for them! they're no longer answering the given prompts in their group, but they're having the meta-discussion about teaching that the workshop is 'really' about... This is a nice clip for thinking overall about the purpose of the workshop and their buy-in....

E1 100820 0931 Tim_reflecting_on_teaching.mov

Here again they're asked explicitly to reflect on the teaching in the workshop. This is a 7 min clip. They say they had to 'invent the objective' - Two participants say something explicit about knowing SV and trusting his teaching methods, and wondering if he did these things on purpose. They like the tools but found their use a bit vague at times "that huge highway could have been made a bit narrower" They express some frustration about concrete things they came to consensus on but never got back to. ('a disconnect') They also say they would have rather known the objective up front. They also think that the participants are homogeneous - want similar goals, but in their own classrooms they have to deal with different interest levels. 6 mins or so in, there is brief mention of why energy is a good topic for the course - that there are several different formats for discussing it. I wish this point had gone further. An interesting point they make is how without a standard for representations (on whiteboards) they were able to interpret other people's work. I'm not sure how directly useful this clip is to me, but probably useful to thinking about ET goals.

The last two clips interest me most (each about 3-4 mins long)

E1 100820 1031 Tim_force_energy_causation.mov

In this one the F=ma is explicitly stated - and ironically Tim who says they should keep it in context of energy (he's the one that used the word force and bruce argued he shouldn't the day before!!) Arny goes back to this energy/force confusion - he asks pointedly what role the force plays - doesn't the rubber band just stand for elastic potential energy? Arny uses the word 'cause' in a way that seems really provocative (is that REALLY what causes it?) - Tim seems to agree but one group member answers with the same force argument they just made. Then someone says that the removal of the string creates an unbalanced force that then allows the energy to be released. Arny wants more clarification... and he gets a simple physics answer - i don't think that's what he wanted...

E1 100820 1031 Tim_cause_mechanism_discussion.mov

Here they have an analogy of the rubber band in space. Tim uses the word push a lot, it's the mechanism for transferring that energy. Very briefly someone says 'do we have to have an object?' - unfortunately this line is dropped... There seem to be two levels of discourse (at least) within the group, and a lot of interesting statements are dropped for re-stated force explanations. Arny says the rubber band in outer space is like the car upside-down, which is really nice. Then they go back to 'what is the cause' - they seem to find that point difficult - but settle on it being the push "F=ma".

These last two clips are from about 15 mins of discussion they had about the rubber band launch. They were asked: 'what is the funder, what object is exerting the force, what causes the launch" There seems to be Tim and Arny trying to have a deeper discussion about cause and mechanism, where Tim and Janel keep repeating F=ma based reasoning. I'm not sure where Mary's ideas are here...

Anyway - food for later thought - time to return to Oregon!!

feedback on being a videographer

I think it would be really useful to know the activities and the goals, and the instructional strategies ahead of time. While this might bias the way I look at things, I think I already come in with a bias, I have my own ideas of where I might go with certain prompts or how i might address certain things - so knowing what the instructional team has in mind would help me focus. For me, the instructional meeting at the end of the day isn't really doing that.

I also think that having more focused time to talk with the other videographers about what we find interesting and why would be good. I liked the idea of this afternoon's looking at video together (sorry I slept through half of it!!) but I have not been looking at things on that level - and as a part time visitor I don't think that level of detail is where I'd want to focus. Maybe not.. I'm not sure about that. But I would have rather watched a 5 min clip silently, thought about it, discussed, then honed in on details. Maybe that's just because i'm a think before talker...???

Or maybe I'd just want to be given something specific to think about that would be useful - because maybe I'm thinking about things that have already been exhausted in conversations, or are not of interest to the general SPU group. Or maybe you want an outside perspective? I'm thinking a lot about modeling, community building, and buy-in because these are issues relevant to me in my teaching - but maybe that's not where everyone else is? Perhaps it's this worry about miss-match that's causing me to want the above two things...???

Anyway - 2 cents from me. I hope I've made a contribution. I'm still not sure if I have...

AARGH! but still some useful comments

So today I did the stupid mistake of not turning the video camera on - and that with spending lots of time fixing the mic, re-adjusting the position, and all!! I feel like such a dope! But lesson learned... I hear kayla got good recordings though. And I do have a few things I'd like to point out from my notes...

The first question they were asked to reflect on in groups was about how the potential energy discussion from the previous day would relate to 6th grade teaching. I posted previously about this - about how consensus is being formed, and whether or not there is a need to be more explicit about it. However, even in a fairly off-task group (which the group I watched today was), the main points seem to be coming up (if i'm even right on what the 'main points' are - see my post on being a videographer). Here are some snippets (not exact quotes but close):

- when you learn a new method... when you need to attack new material use a known method - then relates it to ET - all the sudden yesterday was using ET that [we] now know well to tackle hard stuff - yesterday put [the participants] in the position of what is it like to ... put me in [6th graders] shoes

what interested me about this statement is that she is echoing Eleanor's statement from last week (about new techniques best being explored through known situations while new situations are best explored through known techniques), that was said during a wrap-up discussion but never really made concrete. I thought it was a beautiful point then and wanted it really driven home, so was happy to see it creeping up again. How does this happen? What do they absorb? As teachers, how do we know how effective we are in getting this kind of idea across without feeling the need to harp on it? I still have that feeling that saying something repeatedly is necessary - it's reassuring to me as a teacher, but is not done here AT ALL... but rather giving someone repeated need to work things out themselves is the technique used here - but when doing that, without having a bunch of people observing, how would we ever catch such a gem of a statement where we hear them buying-in??

- all represented something in different ways - have to know what arrows... mean

This statement relates back to the consensus idea - it came up the previous day that one of the whiteboards had arrows used two different ways (I have that in my recording - and they were referencing this in specific) - here they were talking about different representations being good, and strengths and weaknesses of different models, but explicitly stating that you have to know what the things mean - have to be explicit about definitions. This was a point of frustration for me yesterday - why wasn't that point 'driven home' by the instructors - but yet it was there today... how? this was the example I used in my previous post - that I would have asked a wrap up activity to get them to state this explicitly yesterday - but it was still there today - they remembered that flaw and realized the need for consistency. (later at another table during wrap-up discussion someone says "a model is a representation - what are the good things about it and what doesn't work so well" - that should be on Kayla's video)

- 6th graders... if kid didn't have any real world reference points, what might PE look like... experiences to hang the concepts on i think they'd be lost - gotta introduce those first concepts - can make that JUST AS EXPERIENTIAL - hesitate to call what SV does as inquiry-based, it's MYSTERY-BASED

This was the quote of the day - absolutely brilliant - Arny again!! but mystery-based - that's how i feel... this whole process is a mystery. how is it working? i feel in the dark - they feel in the dark, yet somehow it's all working out. But beyond that - it's beautiful that they realized that even when introducing new concepts they think they CAN find an experiental way of doing it - even if this activity isn't exactly what they want to replicate.

There was also this cute moment:

- ball 1 and ball 4 will be same... elastic collision (lots of agreement with him) multiple chiming in here 'that's how i labeled mine too!!'

they were all excited about consensus not just in the idea but in the representation

- every single one of these balls was stuck, no recoil - completely inelastic - what happens is not only conservation of momentum but also a pulse of force

this was after the demo when they were asked to work it out in their group - i didn't get it at all ... 'also a pulse of force' ... what? and why are force and momentum not being related here? What about impulse??? This echos the idea i brought up at the instructor meeting this evening - that they seem hesitant to use the word force because this is "energy theater" (or energy workshop... or whatever) but force is an important role - it is the mechanism (in one way of defining that term) - why not encourage them to see what role force plays rather than to have them feel like they shouldn't use the word? What explicitly makes them feel like force is a bad word in here?

Here's another moment that emphasizes this:

- they're deliberately trying to confuse us by separating out magnetic force and magnetic potential

this seems counter-productive to me. but there's something deeper about this whole issue. I brought this point up in the instructor meeting (Benedikt got the video) and SV said something about Costos (spelling??) suggesting a different use of the word mechanism, and that we could have the full ET without getting into terminology trappings, and thus enable consensus building within the community without a need to match terminology to the broader physics community (he said something like 'we don't run into any trouble there')... because this is a big concern, right? we want THEM to build meaning, community, consensus - but AT SOME POINT they need to relate to the broader world of physicists which usually (though SV pointed out a lot of the things addressed here aren't so clear) already has their own consensus (terminology definitions). And SV may be doing something great in finding a workshop that bypasses this - but at some point doesn't it have to happen in our classrooms? I think during the meeting SV was arguing no, but I don't agree. I agree it doesn't have to be our focus - but if training people to go into the workforce, grad school, whatever - it has to happen at some point. HOW DO I RECONCILE THIS???

At one point I thought I heard the group use the word 'capability' instead of energy - that seems to me to be quite analogous to 'potential' and perhaps how it came up - I think it would be interesting to explore their term use more - in terms of sense-making (not conceptual understanding) - like the quote i posted from several days back where they decide to use the word process instead of mechanism, because for that group process held more meaning - it was more clear.

Otherwise there was a lot of background noise today and my group spent a lot of time off topic - so while I'm frustrated I don't have exact quotes for these snippets - that's the best I could type in real time and it captures most of what I found interesting...

Dedra's thurs morning notes

I don't know how to actually delete this post :( all the info has been put elsewhere now

reflection on (during :P) instructor meeting

This whole idea is coming up about being explicit about a zero-point for potential energy - and I'm glad Hunter is saying that we need BOTH to realize there is a choice, AND to make that choice (explicit) - and Lane is now talking about doing a consensus forum again tomorrow. I am glad to hear this conversation.

I think the one thing that's been bothering me is that I want to see more concreteness - and I don't want to be thinking on a shallow level 'give me an answer' - but on this level of understanding that system choices, models, levels of detail, origins... are all choices - but we still need to be explicit about them in order to have productive scientific discourse.

I think I've seen a lot of groups go around and around because they are talking across each other. They sometimes reach the idea that the reasons they're not saying the same things is because of system choices (or one of these other things) - which is terrific - they're building this idea of needing to be explicit, they're understanding that there are multiple explanations/models... they're thinking about strengths and weaknesses of representations...

THIS IS TERRIFIC - but I feel there's no resolution...

So how do we get them to have resolution (more concreteness) without dictating it? In my classroom, I dictate it - 'ok, so we've run into a dilemma - we can't interpret that without making the origin explicit' - then i demonstrate the use of multiple conventional choices, and discuss their strengths/weaknesses.

Better yet - can we get them to do more consensus? If, for example, after they looked at other table's whiteboard representations of the scenarios this morning, they made an explicit list about what choices were made, what was represented, what they found confusing (a conversation at my table about using arrows in two different ways - both to show more and to show up - probably not being a good idea) and so forth? Having something that they are generating rather than a summary discussion or just moving onto a new puzzle?

I fear they're in the middle of a tough spot - on the one hand, we don't want to promote 'giving answers' but on the other hand, we don't want them spinning their wheels (or not reflecting on the beautiful nuggets they do come up with).

There is the model of thinking that goes initially people think right/wrong, then they think everything is relative, then eventually they come to realize that there are answers they can stand behind based on argumentation, even though other answers could also be reasonable. (Perry scale)

We don't want to leave the participants in this middle place...

Thoughts???

transcript showing concern about using word force, and force relating to mechanism

This post relates directly to my other posts - and probably doesn't make much sense as a stand-alone, but the idea is basically these two points:

- how are they using the word mechanism, and do we need to be more clear about it

- do they feel inhibited to use the word force, and is this problematic?

here's the transcript (video is joe buoyancy mechanism) - my main points of interest are in color. The purple bit is the real gem - the red bits are also interesting. I'm concerned that Tim is referring to an outside authority - not a negotiated meaning of mechanism. No one else seems to see it that way - he's the only one clear about it, but it isn't his construct. It's also interesting how Bruce keeps wanting to only talk energy but uses force terms like push. Bruce is basically pushing this whole reconciliation of their two explanations because of Tim's use of the word buoyancy in the whiteboard diagram - Tim says it is problematic because they should only talk energy. I think bringing up COM is interesting here, Bruce says 'that's one spot that's gravity' - I think Bruce is seeing bringing up COM as requiring a force explanation, where only energy is needed. He has a good point there and it's dropped completely. Energy explanations don't require the particle model, but Tim is relying on one. Mostly I'm still wowed by their negotiation of mechanism... I hope this is clear below:

J = joe, mic wearer

M = mary lady in pink shirt

L = lady in blue jacket

B = bruce in green jacket and grey t-shirt

T = tim in blue t-shirt

C = Chris

[B] Tim can you show me your explanation (points to the whiteboard)

[T] um the water is going to push down on the ball right?

(the females are having a side conversation here i'm ignoring until they join tim and bruce - joe is silent through this)

[B] the water is going to push down the ball?

[T] well the water is pushing down so it's going to displace the ball

[B] no it's going to displace the water

[T] it's going to displace the ball - why does the ball float

[B] are you going back to buoyancy? I'm going back to energy

[T] buoyancy is the - gives the ball kinetic energy

[B] i'm going back to KE - i'm going back to this. Here's my original level of the water, right? you know i should say this is my original level of the water right? (he's pointing/drawing on the whiteboard?) i have this ball, i push it down, it says hey water get out of the way because i'm coming down here so the water can not go any other way except up

[T] uh huh

[B] so the water continues up

[00:01:14.29]

[B] the water is being displaced - i'm doing this in terms of energy so what i have now is

[T] so what have you done...

[B] i have this block here of water, this is my displaced water

[T] what if you take it sort of that the ball is already under water level and you don't have to worry about the higher..

[B] you still got all this i have to push it down

[T] that doesn't matter but what have you done to the PE of the water

[B] what i've done is i've raised the water level, ok, i've and the water wants to come back down again so i have increased the the height of the water ...

[C] the gravitational potential energy

[B] right i've increased GPE of the water so you showed it that way and then i'm saying that the water wants to come back down so now i'm holding this down here when i let go the water says um

[C] but it

[B] the water wants to come back down and take the place of the ball

[00:02:16.07]

[B] and so the ball moves up say a little bit but when it moves up from here to up there it pushes some of the water

[C] out

[B] yea it helps push it away so actually what i think is going on is that the water is going like that as well as the ball is moving straight up

[M] when you let go

[B] yea and and then it ... (drops the whiteboard marker on the diagram)

[T] that's when it reaches the top

[B] it never reaches the top totally right?

[T] it doesn't need to

[M] if it stops it might

[B] but that's my interpretation but to draw it is to here (can't quite hear but he's again dropping the marker on the drawing)

[T] ok, that's fine but the way tod (some discussion about the name of the guy with others chiming in) he talked he simplified he said you only have to consider the center of mass of the water

[B] ok

[T] so to push the ball down you raise the center of mass of the water

[B] ok

[00:03:26.23]

[T] so when that goes down you've lost Gravitational potential and its transferred that to KE of the ball

[C] can you say that again louder ...

[T] so you have the center of mass of my cup of coffee (he lifts it up) is is right there and

[B] there's all different ways to model this

[T] uh if i push something in there i raise the level somewhat but it doesn't matter it's i've raised the COM of that cup of coffee and that's really what you can consider ... active in COM instead of worrying about all the... details of the system (I can't quite get this)

[B] so

[T] the point was that the ball at the bottom has buoyancy it's because the the water has GPE and .. the COM can fall so the COM of the water goes down it loses PE transfers that to KE of the ball, ball increases in KE and i've also got like a bit of feedback where because you have drag with resistance in the water it's transferring KE back to the water

[B] oh that's interesting

[C] so you're thinking it's GPE of the water that it's falling.. pulled down so it's pushing

[T] yea... (can't hear) i mean it doesn't matter to overanalyze that part it's just that water the COM of the water goes down the ball goes up the ball goes into motion so you don't have to worry about forces necessairly but but the object's got buoyancy usually (?) here and it's drag here (pointing to the diagram) usually so, it's simple enough

[B] the only reason i'm just sharing this scenario is because i wanted to keep it all with energy

[00:05:21.23]

[B] rather than COM and buoyancy

[T] well COM just tells you how you can look at position of the water

[B] that's one spot - that's gravity...

[T] well you're talking about GPE so it acts on you can take that COM of the water as as the point where it acts on

[B] right..... ok i just thought it should be all because this is all about energy i thought he wanted us to keep it more to energy

[T] this is in terms of energy

[B] yea although you had the word buoyancy in there

[T] i don't see a problem - that's the mechanism

[B] you're going to call that the mechanism

[T] that's how it transfers it's you know like the interaction that causes that to action (?) this KE transfers because of buoyancy this KE transfers because of drag

[C] so those are the forces

[T] umm.. yea they generalize them as interactions not necessairly forces... because friction..

[B] ok

[C] who generalizes who genera i said they generalize it so i'm going to ask who

[T] the smart people with hats um i did a pilot there's this interactions.. they used that format and i've seen it somewhat in biology...

Teaching philosophies... TERRIFIC READING HERE!!!

there is interesting monologue from Stamatis - Tuesday morning had a lot of discussion about buy-in, assessment, and other teaching issues surrounding ET. Stamatis had just read the demon model of friction quote, and here's what he says. I think this is a strong echo of what Stamatis is trying to do overall in the course (interesting to note this happens JUST after the transcript i have below about the 'route' energy takes - Stamatis runs with that conversation and says 'might that be an artifact of which model you are using?' then goes into the friction model from the demon quote):

"so this is the this is the demon's model friction right... it's the demon's model of friction and uh um when i read this uh i see a debate that can not be won, it cannot be settled, by won i do not mean one person emerges victorious, i mean uh you can not actually make progress. um. because anything that you throw um anything that YOU throw, right, Faustus (spelling?) is going to come back and invent some new feature of the demon in order to be able to account for what you think. and so i think that we have to be um very careful um we have to be very careful because sometimes we ourselves in our discussions are not disciplined enough to stick with a specific model. so sometimes we switch models in the middle of a discussion. and so it is very hard for the other person to know where you hold onto the idea and so um and so i think that that is a very important um a check in um in um scientific discourse. it's to decide what is the consensus, what are you going to take as given, and from where are you going to be the sub... (lost the last few words... would love to hear them!!)"

Then we have a dialogue from the group I'm following that could amount to a whole thesis - there is a LOT going on here - pay attention to the colored items (sorry - this is 12 mins of transcript - but I THINK IT'S HIGHLY RELEVANT AND DIRECTLY RELATED TO MY MORE RECENT POST FROM THE INSTRUCTOR'S MEETING:

[N] is that what we're talking about .. debate discussion this is something we agree about.. come to agreement

[L] uh huh

[J] like how to

[N] within the group?

[J] within how to criticise your partner without shutting them down and stuff like that how to respond to things, how to share ideas

[N] it's not really criticise so much as challenge yea?

[J] yea

[N] yea

[J] yea

[N] yea

[L] (i think she says something?)

[N] you know what i think is that one of the things that has to be established at the base and these guys have done a fantastic job of doing that doing what i'm about to say which is convince people that there's not one way to explaining something

[J] there's not one answer to or

[N] yea see that's what that's the trickiest part because so often in science when we do it by inquiry they the kids have the idea that oh you know there is an answer that they're just they're just not going to tell us they're going to make us figure it out ourselves

[J] ..?.. that we were too

[F] yea

[N] exactly! and then that's exactly right and we still aren't even sure although we're getting better after a week's worth don't you think? so that's the biggest challenge, i mean these are sort of techniques that you would use or strategies that you'd use once you

[L] (can't year it)

[N] well, yea.. they leave you and say your input is as important as...

(G re-joins the table)

[N] well i think that actually gets back to the whole buisness about they have their resources

[J] it's also a teacher resource - the teacher has to be able to somehow foster that idea from the begining

[N] well yea yea yea

[00:03:19.20]

[G] (throwing a ball in the air)

[J] because they're going to take it over fine i think as long as you can somehow show that you are accepting the...

[N] yea, see the thing that's effective about Stamatis (and the other guys??) is that i believe that they i believe that they know what they're talking about and so my students have to believe that i... believe...

[G] ... right away

[N] not right away but i know some... otherwise they're going.. she doesn't know what she's talking about. So that's what i'm cur i really want to hear

[L] ... knowing physics or...

[N] yea, yea yea yea yea yea right right

[L]as a teacher... for other lessons that you've done that you know helped...

[N] yea yea yea right..new classes.. (?).. stamatis was saying that that every community is a new community. ok. so. (laugh) what is...

[J] i think those were two good things that we should right down you know because they're kind of

[N] what two things

[J] i heard two three

[N] (nina leans over to write)

[J] trust in the teacher instructor, but then also the instructor then also then, i don't know, somehow show that everyone's ideas are getting to that final understanding - we have to foster that somehow - i feel those are very teacher centered

[N] right right

[J] because your reaction to one group like that energy theather could have quickly you know like there's a majority of ideas you know...

[N] (saying something over top that B is nodding to)

[00:05:18.03]

[N] everything is ok...

[L] (she is going on about this idea but i can't hear her - her and nina are also both talking)

[N] they don't i don't think they see us going off on our own... even if even in the most outlandish of ..

[J] you know what? you know all they ever really do is rephrase what they heard and let another person in the class take it from there

[N] right (she gets up to write)

[G] yea i get the student saying that's not true sometimes

[N] but right that's what we're talking about here - how do we set it up so that they're willing to go with you this way

[J] uh huh

[N] go this way with you because i said so often so often we do an experiment that we know is going to work... what does that... (?)

[L] and we're looking for specific results

[N] we're looking for specific results and so if they don't get it those results

[J] or maybe that brings the point where you can't have this for some things - i mean it's not going to fit in maybe, you know if you're, i mean a very broad concept or conceptual ideas - i think it's a great thing for, i mean like the energy transfer, um, i think is a very broad conceptual idea but then if you actually doing a lab where they're quantiative data to show, you know, that transfer, you couldn't really do it. there is a correct - i mean there is a better answer than not

[N] you know what i've discovered in actually doing that enough times is it will you will get there...

[J] yea

[N] yea right

[J] i think in those situations it is a lot different than this kind of just talking about the ideas itself

[G] (gets up and leaves again)

[00:07:29.04]

[L] (says something i can't hear)

[J] student ideas?

[N] there is something else that willingness to engage (gets up to write on the board)

[J] what do you mean by willingness to engage

[N] Oh that that they're willing to do this

[J] the students

[N] yea the students yea the students... (writing)

[J] all right

[N] so what i think that .. maybe we should talk.. discussion about... oh - but after we... developed.. we didn't really answer the questions... (she is mumbling what the questions are) these are strategies

[J] i think we said yes if you do these

[N] but how do we how do we get these attributes the attribute would be willingness toooo learn this way (she writes)

[B] (i can't hear what she says)

[J] yea

[N] is that right?

[J] willingness to uh discuss, to stay on topic

[N] yea yea and i think the the implication is, yea yea yea absolutely right yea

[00:08:50.28]

[J] and be i mean there's more to it to stay on top of it, to be comfortable with not knowing if this is the right way or not

[N] well right yea yea yea

[J] willing to be wrong?

[L] yes

[N] right

[J] but even more because we didn't even know if we were wrong or right but we were willing to continue our thinking

[N] right so

[L] stay on top but be willing to say... (can't hear)

[J] well it's willingness to say i don't know but then continue to stay on topic

[N] yea yea yea explore without running into the wall (?)

[J] usually, there we go

[N] explore without validation?

[J] i don't know yea yea yea so because we've never gotten a validation of you're on the right track or you're going the wrong way or it's just we do it on our own

[N] so that willingness to stay on topic and explore without external ..

[J] and that's both student and teacher

(A CHORUS OF YEAS!)

[J] because if a group is going the wrong direction you have to be willing to let them go that way

[N] right until what they're doing comes back, or comes against something that isn't born out by their experience or their..

[J] yea (nina writes)

[00:10:09.07]

[G] (comes back)

[J] that's a good way to state it

[N] i think this is good - this is a huge thing and you know there there's also a willingness to let things take as long as they will take

[J] and i think that's a huge problem that we don't have we don't have that attribute in our classroom, i mean it's hard to get that in there

[N] oh god yes - i want to say i want to get that in there and see how far we get... newton's laws forever... i'd love to be able to do that, i'm not going to be able to pretty soon because all of our test scores are going to be tired to... i've got to have the courage of my conventions that my students are going to have really high scores because i'm doing - what did i just say?

[J] um it was a willingness to take the time to do this or to yea

[G] you guys are doing a great job (laughter from the table)

[N] Validation, YEA!

[00:11:14.15]

[N] willingness to uh i have no audio memory

[J] to take the time

[N] ok to take as much time as it as much time as it (writes) oh!

[J] and then also i mean we all have different levels maturity levels, but if we had some of those discussions in our classrooms where, i mean there's throught the whole you konw days there have been different groups that have been more, paid more attention than others and other groups have gone off on different tangents within their groups but as a teacher you almost have to let that happen, i don't know, i mean they can't be there every single moment because we're not even there every single moment

(IRONY - G STANDS UP AND WALKS AWAY DURING THIS STATEMENT! doesn't go far - comes back before it's over)

[N] right, right

[J] i mean that would be a very difficult - i mean i would be very frustrated with it to you know one group not on task but another group is but we were that way and they just continued going with it (nina writes)

what is the 'route' (mechanism issues...)

I keep harping on this whole mechanism issue - students getting confused between transferred and transformed, students saying is it a process or a thing, and now a whole discussion tuesday morning about the 'route' and do we need one?

Fascinatingly - this came up around 4:30 pm in the instructor's meeting - I think there's a lot of data here... And Hunter explicitly mentioned it being an important topic for discussion in E2.

Here is the transcript from this morning about route:

[00:00:00.00]

SV: Cindy? how about your group (i think he says cindy - he's inviting one of the groups to present their consensus points)

[1] so we felt that we had come to concensus (here the mic'd person from my group - John, says 'don't finish that sentence - he's whispering within his group so i can't hear the vocal from across the room well) ... started the basis of our discussion is that all our energy of interest at in the form of potential energy elastic energy. at the end of act two it had been all transfered to kinetic ... and would have been dissipated for example into the surrroundings, however we feel that the point we do not have consensus was the exact route of the energy flow if there is ... .. but we're also not sure if that is important- that if as we're talking about the systems and considering it that whether or not we have to resolve that or not we .. whether it is a conversation worth having maybe because..into... but going there how i get there... (more stuff i can't make out) just center on...

[00:01:14.22] [2] does there have to be a route

[1] pardon?

[2] does there have to be a route? to be able to explain the energy, um does there have to be a route for a mechanism, i like i kind of got from their group that they correct me if i'm wrong but you guys you guys don't care about the route or you guys say there is a route your'e just not sure what it is

[1] well we were trying to go with what the members of our group had come to consensus on, and so because there are different opinions by saying that we could all agree on that

[2] so you, different people in your group think there are different routes but you all believe there is some a route that the energy takes

[1] the important thing is that all the eneregy is starting in the same place, you know, starting in the potential energy of the spring all being eventually transformed into kinetic energy... heat and sound - that we can agree on, what we don't necessairly agree on is is there a sole.. to the road

[3] and i really liked this statement, number 3, whether or not there was energy transfered to or from the road is irrelevant to the motion of the car

[2] right, but then i think you guys are saying there is there is some sort of a route but we don't know what it is, and these guys are saying that they don't care what the route is or even if there is a route.... (can't hear)

[00:02:47.05]

(at this point my group starts talking about how to pronounce 'route' and makes it hard to hear - but there is laughter in the room)

[00:03:00.20]

[1] wouldn't say it is so much that we don't care as whether or not it is necessary for most of the things we consider for our system... (someone interjects and says 'say it one more time?') i don't know if it's so much we don't care as whether or not it is relevant for the main things that i would be considering for my system i find... how fast the car go, how much energy needs to go into the beginning i mean you have to (look at the track???) at some point but most of the things i would be working with in my system, do i need to know all the ins and outs .. driving my car do i really need to think about my motor.. most of the things i do with my car

[5] even if we analyze the situation and get the same results as someone else who .. come up with the same result in the end...... (so hard to hear :( I hope leslie's audio is better to fill in the gaps)

Channeling

I've mentioned this to Rachel and Sam before-- when I teach, there are moments when I'm clearly "channeling" the voice of Matty ("I think we need to tease this apart"), Paul ("so it sounds like you're saying... did I get that right?"), and David ("but that's important, right?" - actually it's harder to channel David- probably b/c I've never seen him teach physics). My "channeling" for classroom management comes in part from scripts from PCP and even Teach Like a Champion.

Monday, Stamatis said, while the group was working through the energy transfer from the road to the car, "is the energy of the ground at the end of Act Two greater than, less than, or equal to the beginning of Act Two?"* (I'll work to track down the video moment because that might not be an exact quote.) This is the kind of sentence that would rarely (if ever) come up in everyday conversations or between people trying to figure out a bit of science - and not among practicing scientists doing science. The precise wording and the ">, <, =" options suggest a school question; more precisely, it sounds like a written question, and even a test question. More precisely still, I think, "Aha! A UW-trained educator channeling tutorial pretests!" But what does it mean to channel a tutorial? What kind of conversation would that be? Is Stamatis trying to have us re-create a tutorial through discourse? - the chain of logic and reasoning from a tutorial could never be recreated without knowing the punchline first, could it? My sense was he was trying to get a "consensus" - some commitment from the class on something that we could build on. And if he's not trying to recreate a tutorial, then is there a mismatch between the framing that the question suggests and the intended path of the discussion?

It makes me think (again) that while a tutorial is excellent at developing certain kinds of conceptual understanding, it doesn't provide a template -- not for students and not for teachers -- for developing their own understanding about some topic for which there is no tutorial. It doesn't provide us a script to "channel" that will get us out of our pickle, except by someone who already knows the way out. I hope that my instruction provides such scripts - scripts that help you navigate unknown territory. (I channel Polya: "okay - there's a problem here we can't solve. So we need to find an easier problem that we can." and David: "what would a reasonable person who disagrees with you say? what is wrong about their reasoning?") I've seen such channeling by my students towards the end of the semester, and feel that it has been really productive in getting them to move themselves forward.

So I'm back to thinking about outside-in v. inside-out curriculum and instruction.** Today (Tuesday) Stamatis put on the projector some questions (from Minstrell?) about a student's written comments:

• what do the students seem to be saying?
• what are productive aspects of student thinking?
• what might be problematic aspects of student thinking?
• what cognitive need to the students seem to have?
• what activity might you design for them?
  
• how does the activity meet the need?

These questions are inherently outside-looking-in (3, 4, and 5). You cannot answer them without knowing where exactly it is you want them to go conceptually and a particular chain of reasoning (monologic) that will get you there.



*Those weblinks are mostly just me joking around. (You don't need to read Matty's twitter updates.) But it is telling that "greater than, less than, or equal to" has google hits that are overwhelmingly school-related.

**Those images suggest I'm thinking "down-from-above" v. "in the thick of things."

for your amusement - and yes, it's data too!!

Here is the great fun we Rachel and I got to witness this afternoon. This first video nicely reinforces my last post that mechanism continued to be a hot topic and is where the joke about 'we do not need consensus' came from (bonus points for anyone who can figure out what is whispered 5 seconds in):

And this second video (saved but not transcribed) is Arnie's wonderful outburst. Stamatis said that after class he said that ET was wonderful and he was going to use it with his 9th graders - so I think that's evidence of my during-observation feeling that he was being positive when he said that ET is what showed him that the ideas were lunacy:

Here is Arny's outburst (full transcript is uploaded): Well, I'm I've just gotta tell you the longer i watch this thing and listen to this discussion i think this this thing about the ground flexing and throwing the car forward is the biggest red herring i have ever seen come up in the minds of a bunch of really bright people (laughter - someone says 'wow that's harsh') and it just like once it got created it it kind of got a life of its own, and i i and i want to go back there to something that chuck said what is, in real time where is the mechanism for the road to compress and release, where is that thing. i mean i can see the truck tire up there on the dragster truck, when the truck is overcoming its initial inertia so it that's at the starting line. later on that tire is not going to be deformed anything like that as the truck travels down the roadway and i can imagine are we going to imagine a rubber tire deforming? so if you deform the asphalt road, guess what, well it's going to stay there and now you've deformed the asphalt road and now it's back here, it's not going to somehow magically impart energy back to the tire going forward, i just think this is nuts (laughter) and i'll and i'll tell ya you know what convinced me? energy theater. it's convinced me that this is pure lunacy, this thing about the road throwing the vehicle forward.

Notice again the mechanism issue plays a huge role here. He's saying WHERE IS THAT THING - he needs a THING to be the mechanism...

Enjoy :)

what is a mechanism??

I'm putting about a third of a transcript i made from Friday afternoon's observations (the video and transcript are archived) - the group had pieces of this conversation all afternoon, but here is the heart of it:

[00:00:01.25] (W) In act two three and four, the car is giving the ground energy, thermal energy, it's very minimal, so it actually is a receiver of energy but is it still a mechanism?

(B) yea, that's what I was wondering

(G) the .. is why we're having it go down the road is the mechanism

(B) it's a mechanism to make it move or it's a way to make it move but it's not, i don't think it's, it's not necessary for a tran transfer of energy, where here it was necessary for a transfer of energy here, and energy is still going to be changed back to, or into movement without the ground

(G) right because when we did it upside down the wheels still move

(B) or changing it to ice or whatever it is, the wheels are still going to move, so that makes me wonder is is now the rubber band, it is stored energy i agree with that, but is it also is that what is also the mechanism that changes it into some other type of energy? (addressing this to W)

[00:01:13.15]

(G) gotcha

(W) like the act of it unwinding is that the mechanism (B nodds) i would agree more with the act of it unwinding vs. just the rubber band itself (B 'yea, yea') but can the mechanism be an object and then in the next instance be, something like a movement? i don't know

(G) i don't know

(P) (? says something brief in agreement?)

(G) we didn't ever define mechanism

(W) no (pause) i still don't know the first thing about...

(B) neither do i, i mean i like how we kind of came up with it in this one, it makes a lot of sense to me here

(G) then applying that to another thing

(B) i guess i was trying to take this to that one

(W) is there another term we can use instead of mechanism? (she interrupts B here) that i just i can't seem to grasp hold on to a good definition of that mechanism

(B) do you like, how about uh, the way to transfer energy?

(W) that would help, i mean that would make a lot more sense to me (she says something else B talks over)

(B) i mean that's how i've been thinking of it here but i don't know if you guys agree with that or

(G) no, it does, we use another word in science, mechanism, when we're more familiar with the ways to transfer energy

The whole conversation I clipped is 7 minutes long - it is very interesting. They end up going online to consult a definition which confuses them more about whether it is a 'thing' or a 'process'. There are some terrific quotes in here:

they are clearly sharing their confusion with each other:

(W) i just hate that term (looks over at B) the way energy is transferred?

(B) is it also transformed? i mean is it

(W) i think so because i mean like...

(G) yea (looks online)

a bit later the same issues are still on the table:

(B) to me that's the problem in this one there's two mechanisms, there's two ways to make the wheels turn? (looks at W)

(B) but i i'm still confused about what the mechanism is behind the uh or the way it's transferred in the rubber band, i don't know if it's the rubber band itself or the winding of it

(P) yea

(W) it has something to do with that though... I hate not having answers

(G) well it's the process like you brought it into biology because mechanism is different in what you're talking about

they're negotiating the term:

(W) so the process of of energy movement, right?

(B) uh yea

[00:05:25.20]

(W) let's just use the word process, i like that better

(B) process

(W) process of energy

they start to find resolution that satisfies themselves:

(W) I'm starting to understand this lab

(P) the definitions help (they laugh)

(G) isn't this we're back to revisit the terminology we're back to ..

and during this segment what is on their whiteboard is being edited and checked by the group members (they're really functional together in terms of cooperating)

then an off-topic but still very relevant statement:

[00:07:03.11] (W) i think this is one of the reasons i enjoyed biology better, because i like to have answers

(G laughs)

(W) and definite concrete facts, and this

(G) this isn't... trying to trace energy?

they go on to talk about how doing this really helped them make sense of the situation and discuss whether or not it would be practical in their own classroom.

What I really liked about this episode, besides the really clear group negotiation and shared meaning making, and the emphasis on having a common clear definition in order to have a satisfying explanation, is that this idea of mechanism if really very complicated.

If I challenge myself to REALLY think 'what is the mechanism' it sends me down the rabbit hole - i start thinking QED and particle exchange - what is REALLY making this happen. Then I start thinking that to REALLY discuss mechanism then I need to have a local theory (no action-at-a-distance) for everything. But this isn't really productive. Leslie and I discussed this briefly walking to lunch - she said something about the usefulness of constructs - and talking about, for example, gravity as if it were a tangible - having 'thingness' makes it easier to have conversations about mechanism.

Anyway, all this had my head spinning this weekend - and I think the students heads were spinning friday (and i saw this come up monday too)

Benedikt said it came up more in E2 (or maybe leslie did?) - perhaps it would be interesting to contrast this transcript with one from E2??

And I think it is HIGHLY powerful for them to negotiate meaning - i think it's also worth intervening when they start going down rabbit holes. They need to come away with this thinking about the process and the problem solving (which this group did - kudos to them!), and understanding why that is valuable, but i feel like they need resolution, even if that resolution is only 'this is just a useful construct'... But perhaps those discussions must wait for E2?

An interesting thing to note is that although beautiful things were happening in this group they still held major confusions and didn't answer the questions deeply and realized they had inconsistent ideas and needed help from Stamatis to sort them out. So good team workers, struggling with complex ideas, but still struggling with more simple ones (confused specifically about how the car can move if the 3rd law pairs always cancel)...

Much meat in this transcript....

What is the 'physics' of wind turbines?

One frustration I had during the wind farm tour is that I felt like the kind of conversations we had with the guide, and the kind of things he addressed and how he addressed our questions was not at all aligned with what I would address with my students in a physics course. The guide seemed to answer questions indirectly, sidestepping physics details. For the most part I felt that the participants were ok with this level of discourse (or possibly accepted that this is all they were going to get from the guide), but when we were walking back to the building from going inside the turbine one participant walked up front with the guide and tried unsuccessfully to press for more. Here is the transcript - it's not totally complete because the wind was so strong on the mic (apologies for spelling):

[00:00:00.00] (G) I read this in one of the books I can't remember specifically so don't quote me on it. (P) (he says a word or two, perhaps of encouragement?) (G) But there's for each mile an hour wind speed it increase it produces like 8 times greater efficiency

[00:00:18.02](P) It must be because (G inserts an uh huh) it seems like...(can't hear from wind) if it's only 5 miles an hour more than it is now it will increase from 1/3 to full capactity (G) exactly and that's how it does it, and so, with these turbines, and all, most utilities turbines are like that. Some of them use ah direct drive method though. which instead of having the geerbox in there the whole naselle is actually the generator and so it's less

[00:00:43.04] (P) (he cuts the guide off here) it seems like that would be more efficient... (G) (G cuts off P here) it's it's yea it's less moving componants, yea, but right now they have an american company that's actually desiging and building those called clipper (P) so it doesn't matter how fast they're going (G) no they they they are still they are still (P) ...(says something I can't hear, maybe using the word limited?) (G) yea, exactly, they are still limited to... (P) is there a way to uh capture the energy and slow...? (G) oh yea, oh yea

[00:01:12.17] (G) as long as the legs(?) are capturing... capture electicity, you can have some, like these ones are at 16 and a half rpm's but the gear box is stepped up to that 1800 to get it senquanized with the grid, who knows the ones across the street they could be slower or faster than that, but they want to keep them slower. it doesn't matter the faster you go with the rotor, doesn't necessairly mean the more energy you produce (P) it's the torque... (G) yep

[00:01:45.05] (G) a lot of technology goes into these things, (P) .. (yea..?) (G) i mean a lot of testing (P) it's a lot more complicated than it looks (G) oh yea, oh yea, I had, it's amazing working out here because you have some people that... (he goes on to talk about strange ideas people have and some not even knowing they're producing electricity)

What I find interesting here is a few statements: (G) says "and that's how it does it" relating to the increase in efficiency - but there is no explanation of 'how' in the conversation then he starts talking about an alternative design that is direct drive, and (P) seems immediately to be asking about that being more efficient because it won't be stuck at one rotation speed (this was a question that I seem to recall having come up throughout the tour - why fixed speed, why is that efficient?), then they discuss the fact the speed is limited, and (P) presses the issue by asking about capturing the energy, and (G) starts with oh yea, oh yea, but then answers off topic but simply asserts that faster doesn't equal more energy then (P) offers 'it's the torque' and (G) immediately agrees but then totally veers off topic and starts talking about how much the visitors don't know about turbines.

It was as if the guide was only comfortable stating certain things and then holding interesting conversation - and he just avoided the technical questions. I liked this clip because it was the participant, and not Stamatis, who was pushing, and he was trying to do so away from the others, as if perhaps having an independent conversation would offer him the chance to get his questions answered. He didn't press the issue at all after that - he didn't try to get the guide back on track, and just let the guide talk about other visitors.

Feedback on the videographer experience

About half of the videographers are leaving today.  Thanks so much, all of you!  Could you comment here on what features of the experience we should try to make sure and repeat next year?  or improvements?

And if you have new paper ideas, add them to the list.

From the Cabinet of Cognitive Curiosities

Two days ago, E2 was talking more about the energy in a refrigerator, figuring out the physics, drawing graphical representations on their whiteboards, and eventually doing energy theater. They had started to talk about the physics the day before, and Matt had come up with a graphical representation of the temperature of the refrigerant:


Matt drew this picture again on the new white board with their final representation. While he was doing that, Mary Sue watched very thoughtfully, and eventually said:

But don't you think it's fascinating that you thought up this diagram that is a brand-new diagram that none of us have ever seen before and you just thought it up and made it? Don't you think that's kind of fascinating?

Apparently, she was really amazed by the fact that Matt had come up with a new representation/diagram "on the fly." In a later discussion about their whiteboard, she brings it up again (after Hunter asks what might be so special about this whiteboard, since everybody had gathered around it):

Well, one thing I thought was interesting was that Matt drew this diagram - he drew it here, yesterday [pointing to the other white board from the day before] - (Hunter: Uh-huh...) and I was like, what are you doing, what is this, and it, (Hunter: Yeah...) sort of was a representation of the temperture, then he wanted to get rid of it, and I was like, NO! It's fascinating that you just came up with this diagram in your HEAD, that we'd never talked about anything like this, before (Hunter: Mhmm...) We gotta keep it!

I think it is awesome to see how some teachers are (still?) wondering about what's going on in other people's head, how it can be that someone came up with something without having talked about it with others before (reminds me of our previous discussion here). I'm not sure if she is a think-while-talker and is just totally amazed by Matt not having to talk about his idea of the new graphical representation, or if she just finds it amazing in general that there is stuff going on in humans' brains that we really don't know much about. Either way, I think it's cool that an educator, a school science teacher is fascinated by cognitive phenomena (like I think teachers, as any educators, should be in general, but mostly are not, in my experience, because they take a lot of things for granted without being curious, any more).

What is the purpose for whiteboards? or Creating and Inequality of Access

I’ve used whiteboards a lot in teaching LAs. I’m usually very visual when learning and teaching. I view whiteboards as a common work place for people to visually share their ideas with their groups so they are “on the same page” so to speak. Yet I almost always have groups present their whiteboards as well. Therefore I see two roles that whiteboards can take:

1. Shared workspace

2. Presentation spaces (economical poster-boards)

In this clip from Tuesday of E2, table 6 is working to understand the refrigerator scenario. The clip is about half and hour into the process. For approximately two minutes prior to this clip, Linda has been explaining and revising her diagram which she had been working on privately in her notebook for several minutes prior to explaining it. During Linda's explanation, Lezlie asks a lot of clarifying questions and thoughts on how to revise the diagram. Liz listens but doesn't ask a lot of questions. This clip is longer than the key exchange (which occurs at :53) because I want to show Liz's body language which I think conveys a lot about how she is feeling.

There are two things that strike me about this clip. First, Liz and Linda appear to be operating with two very different understandings of the purpose of whiteboards. Liz appears to have the first purpose listed above in mind (whiteboards as shared workspaces). She views the whiteboard as a place to write down ideas so they can be shared by the group. This is supported by the fact that she is constantly writing and erasing things on the board, and often trying to draw other group member's verbal descriptions on the board. On the other hand, Linda appears to agree more with the second purpose of whiteboards (they are presentation spaces). Therefore she is unwilling to put what she considers to be a unfinished product (her current diagram) on the whiteboard. For Linda, the workspace, or place for ideas which are in development, is her notebook. I think this relates to the idea which Rachel has mentioned earlier (here) that some students want time to think about their ideas privately before sharing with the whole class. For Linda, writing in her notebook appears to be the opportunity to think privately before writing on the whiteboard which would be producing something for "public" consumption. I worry that, as instructors, our use of gallery walks and whiteboard presentations has prevented students like Linda from using the whiteboard as a group workspace.

The reason I am concerned about this is the second thing that strikes me about this clip. There appears to be an equity issue centered around the whiteboard and it's use or lack thereof. One of the reasons that whiteboards work so well as a shared workspace is that they are centrally located and encourage big writing which everyone in the group can see. When everyone in the group can see the visual representation of what is being discussed then everyone has the opportunity to equally participate in the discussion (I'm not saying that using whiteboards will lead to full and equal participation for every group member, only that it provides the opportunity for this). When Linda switches to using her notebook as the workspace she affects the access other members of the group have to the discussion. For Lezlie this change is not very noticeable since she appears to have no problem seeing the diagram over Linda's shoulder. Yet for Liz the change is profound. Because the focus has moved to Linda's notebook, Liz can no longer see what Linda and Lezlie are pointing to and therefore cannot follow the discussion. Liz tries to address this by asking Linda to redraw her diagram on the whiteboard, but Linda's discomfort with putting an unfinished product on the whiteboard prevents her from following through on Liz's request (Linda very likely does not realize that Liz can't see and therefore is probably not intentionally blocking Liz from the conversation). I think Liz's feelings of not being part of the discussion, her repeated attempts to reengage in the conversation, and her eventual disengagement from the conversation are visible in her body language.

As Rachel pointed out, it is also possible that it is not Linda's view of the purpose of whiteboards but her familiarity with writing in her notebook (from her previous experiences in PbI) which creates the inequality of access.

I think this clip suggests that while as instructors we may want to use whiteboards for both of the purposes listed above, our use of whiteboards as presentation spaces may inhibit some students' from later using whiteboards as work spaces. I think this clip also suggests that inequality in access to a tool can influence participation.

Buy in or not buy in?

Leslie, Kara, Ben and I were night-walking along the ship canal, last night, think-while-talking about the buy-in behavior of some of the E1 participants. It was mentioned during the instructor's meeting that some E1-teachers were hesitant to further buy into the course because they felt what they were doing was not physics.

Leslie mentioned that one of the most important points during her academic career was when she took ownership over her own course of study and decided whether or not a particular lecture was valuable for her, and whether or not to attend. She said that she was torn between her empathy for the teachers who want to take ownership, to decide for themselves what is good for them and what not, and her feeling as an instructor to try to convince them that they should hang around, even if they don't understand why right now, because it might later occur to them that it actually will be useful to them...

We talked about subtleties in how the instructors for E1 and E2 tried to get their participants to buy in, and we talked about what we might do in our own classrooms to get our students to buy in. It was a very interesting conversation, although we didn't really get a result (at some point we just got chocolate and didn't talk about that, any more). Maybe this is a place to talk more about this topic...

(While we were walking and talking, I heard the song Star 69 by Fatboy Slim in my head: "They know what is what but they don't know what is what, they just know what they know what they don't know, what is what...")

The Answer Is...

The two videos below show two different parts of the class. In the first one Matt is engaging Hunter with a very specific question about scientists' terminology. Hunter's back is to the center of the room and the third group sitting at table 6.

In the first video notice that at 10 seconds Matt poses his question "Is thermal energy only the vibrational energy of particles?" in a very strong tone and cadence and really projects his voice clearly. Then to begin his answer Hunter uses the phrase "The Answer is..."

Now have a look at what was going on in the other group. Pay particular attention to the teachers' body language at 47 seconds in the clip.

What I see here is the powerful (dare I say Pavlovian) response of these two teachers to Hunter's use of the magic word Answer. During Matt's question both Linda and Lezlie looked over towards him and Hunter, so they were both aware of the fact they were engaged in conversation. There was also a clear break in the conversation in their own group. So when Hunter used the magic word it was easy for them to indulge their natural reaction which was to look immediately for the answer! (Bonus: in the first clip you can see Linda's ponytail turn sharply as she looks over)

The other fabulous thing about this episode is that both Benedikt and I had the same response! We both immediately perked up when we heard Hunter announce The Answer, and both noted it specifically in our field notes. I think that regardless of whether we are students, teachers, or researchers, we are all still waiting hungrily for someone to give us The Answer.

A teacher's comment on Energy Theater

While I recognize that one of the dangers in video analysis is only choosing the quotes that support your point, I couldn't pass up this great quote from one of the E2 teachers about the benefits of Energy Theater. In it, Linda discusses her perspective on the advantage of using Energy Theater instead of Source-Reciever diagrams to represent complex processes.

A quick transcript (so you don't get too distracted by the slurping noises :)

I'm just thinking in terms of the.. especially if you're.. cuz I was trying to use those diagrams, and I realized that I wasn't representing the things I thought I should be representing. And after watching this I'm thinking well maybe I just need to block out Energy Theater scenario, rather than trying to use that. Because I could almost see trying to have the act one, act two, act three, act four, act five. I find those diagrams very useful for a very simple... OK, potential energy goes down, kinetic energy goes up, Bingo. But when it gets more and more complex, I think it gets much harder to use those diagrams to represent what's happening.

UPDATE: In this quote, I believe Linda is using the phrase "block out" in the theater sense of "to mark or indicate the outline or chief lines of (to block out a design)", so she is basically saying that she should use Energy Theater for more complex scenarios.