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???