Science Talk: Teacher empowerment in the context of the Energy Project

So, it’s been well over a week since I gave this presentation for the EPSRI Congress, and I’m realizing just how tricky it is to capture the essence of an informal presentation in blog form. My plan at this point is to wing it and see how it goes.

My experience as an EPSRI scholar has really gotten me all fired up about issues of teacher empowerment and how exactly professional development experiences (such as workshops and institutes) can foster this teacher empowerment. In many ways, this makes a whole lot of sense, as I have been deeply involved in K-12 teacher professional development efforts for many years at UW and I will soon be spending much of my time on similar efforts at the University of Maine. Informal discussions with Rachel and Hunter have also made me think more carefully about the role of the worksheet in such efforts.

Most of my interest, however, in teacher empowerment may be attributed to a “magical” video clip (“We’ll Make Something Up!”) that was collected on the first day of Understanding Energy 2. This clip, which is included in the post and which has also been posted earlier, raised important questions for me about (a) how teachers perceive themselves in relation to scientists and scientific thought and (b) who, according to the teachers, has the power to construct scientific knowledge. I must also thank Enrique Suarez for introducing me to the wonderful book Talking Their Way into Science: Hearing Children’s Questions and Theories, Responding with Curricula by Karen Gallas[1], which provides considerable insight into issues of learner empowerment and what it means to “do science.”

After briefly exploring some of the literature on teacher empowerment, it became clear that efforts to foster empowerment are tightly tied to the establishment of an environment in which (a) knowledge is co-constructed and its creation is guided by the learners’ questions [1,2] and (b) professional collaboration is fostered [3]. Given that teacher empowerment is an explicit goal of the Energy Project, it is not surprising that these characteristics also describe the learning environment in the Understanding Energy courses.

Clip 1: We’ll make something up (June 27). I know that I have already blogged about this clip, but I have embedded the improved video as part of this blog entry. The discussion stemmed from a series of slides that Hunter showed the class in UE2, in which he went through how high school teachers came up with a new type of energy when trying to account for the behavior of the refrigerator.

The transcript is included here.

Margaret: So [unclear], I have to say I'm a little confused.

Hunter: Yeah.

Margaret: Phase energy. I know, we don't have any, we don't have understanding or, we'll make something up. We'll call it phase energy.

Hunter: Mmhmm. Is that okay? Is that what you're asking?

Margaret: Yeah. I mean is it okay? Well, yeah, it.. you know, it accomplished I guess what they set out to accomplish, but is it real?

Akbar: That's a [unclear], yeah

Cyndi: But when water changes state, it's isn't it also said that it changes its I dunno its phase? Is that correct or?

Hunter: Yes, state and phase would be sort of interchangeable.

Cyndi: Ok, synonymous.

Hunter: Yeah

Cyndi: Okay, so, in that context, [unclear] if if because we we are causing that water...

Margaret: What's that what's that energy transfer is called?

Cyndi: Shifts.

Margaret: Shifts of state of matter, I mean what do we call it in the real word outside of the classroom?

Joe: Isn't it all arbitrary anyway?

Margaret: I don't know.

Joe: I mean, you know, thermal energy -- that's an idea. Like you could have called it pancake energy if you wanted to.

Akbar: So, in essence, it's kind of like what the experts which basically are the people that first like kinda first decided to think about it and create the benchmark or create the idea. It'd be the same thing if we called it bluebland. Once everybody agrees to that it's bluebland, as long as it conveys the understanding of what's happening to the best of our understanding, then basically it was okay. Is that kind of the... the thing?

Many issues are raised in this short clip. Do teachers perceive concepts/ideas generated by their peers (i.e., teachers participating in professional development programs) to be “real”/legitimate or simply “made up” (or somewhere in between)? Also, do teachers feel that they have the authority to generate scientific knowledge, models or does that authority only belong to experts/scientists? One of Margaret’s comments also raises an apparent disconnect between what is taught in the classroom and the language used in the “real world” (or perhaps the “world of scientists”).

Some of these issues regarding the nature of scientific thinking may stem, in part, from outsider perceptions of science, as reflected in the following quote from Latour and Woolgar (which I came across in Gallas’ text [1]): “Our discussion is widely informed by the conviction that a body of practice widely regarded by outsiders as well-organized, logical and coherent, in fact consists of a disordered array of observations with which scientists struggle to produce order. Despite participants’ well-ordered reconstructions and rationalizations, actual scientific practice entails the confrontations and negotiation of utter confusion. (Latour & Woolgar, 1979)”

Indeed, when viewed through this lens, one can see how the teachers may feel that the apparent chaos and uncertainty they experience must be something very different from proper scientific practice.

In this first video clip, I was also struck by the extent to which the teachers were turning to the authority figure in the room (Hunter) for affirmation. It happens multiple times in the clip. Margaret starts by asking Hunter if the creation of phase energy is okay. When Cindy tries to explain to Margaret why the name makes sense, she seems a bit unsure of her response and asks Hunter, “Is that correct?” Moreover, even Akbar, who reveals a very sophisticated understanding of concept creation and naming, ends his contribution to the discussion with, “Is that kind of the… the thing?”

Both Akbar and Joe (also known as Brian, at least for the blog writer) seem fine with the arbitrary nature of naming a concept or idea. Joe’s comment that thermal energy could have easily been named pancake energy really jumps out in the clip. As mentioned above, Akbar makes some great points as well, although he interestingly refers to “the experts.”

All of the interactions discussed above provide considerable insight into different aspects of teacher empowerment. I was most struck by the fact that many of the teachers (returning Energy Project participants) differ considerably in terms of the extent to which they perceive themselves as generators of scientific knowledge.

Clip 2: We made up energy (June 29). While this clip would certainly be more useful if it started a bit earlier (but I didn’t have access to the earlier portion while preparing my presentation), I mainly included the clip in order to juxtapose it with Clip 1 (and because I will probably never forget Krishna’s excitement, as reflected in the iEtherPad chat window, when it happened). In order to construct their energy storyboard for an elevator Margaret (“Is that okay?”) and Lisa came up with a new form of energy: rotational potential energy.

Here is the (very short) transcript:

Margaret: We made up energy.

Lisa: Potential rotational energy.

Margaret: Potential rotational energy.

Lisa: Potential rotational energy, yes.

Joe: [unclear]

Lisa: Ummmm.

To be honest, it’s hard to interpret exactly what is going on without carefully viewing earlier video. Are Margaret and Lisa demonstrating genuine enthusiasm because they came up with a new form of energy? Are they being flip? Did they find it particularly funny that they had to come up with this new form given Margaret’s comment on the first day? Or is this all for the purposes of entertainment? (As was discussed during my presentation, Lisa is a stand-up comic.) In any case, it raises the possibility of trying to track shifts in attitudes throughout the professional development experience.

Clip 3: Blind faith (June 30). This clip, which is a bit hard to follow at first due to the fact that multiple discussions are going on at Table 7, features a very in-depth and nuanced discussion between Anne and Cindy about the nature of science. (It is worth noting, before reading the transcript, that Lisa indicated on June 30 that all physicists possess the same large bucket of knowledge. The resulting whole-class discussion, in which we tried to indicate that this is not really the case, included contributions from Hunter, Rachel, and me.)

Here is the transcript:

Anne: Well, I guess I'm but what I'm saying is that I think that there's blind faith. I I - there's blind faith to it where maybe there isn't full understanding but just an acceptance that we call it this and that matter contains energy.

Anne: But that full understanding that you're describing I don't think physicists have it either. I think that...

Cindy: And they will be the first to tell you that they live with a great deal of...

Anne: Well if you go to the physics blogs, you can see them wondering the same thing though. And and one of these articles, it said blind faith umm in something that that we can't fully test, or....

Cindy: But, but what I tend to do as a learner, is if I see a phenomenon and I test a phenomenon and I construct a model in my mind of physics that makes sense to me in each and build in my own understanding then I feel that I've learned something. And...

Anne: Well, that's what Einstein said. He said if I can picture it I understand it... making pictures. But the act of actually imposing. Or even with Feynman, Feynman saying, well it's these you know water molecules that have to stick together close.

Anne: That's what makes me wonder. We're we're using our stories and we're putting them on the world.

Cindy: Well, and we are...

Anne: How do we, how do we know that that is really how the world is?

This discussion highlights a much more realistic view of scientists/physicists, in which they may not have a “full understanding.” In addition, there is explicit discussion of scientific modeling: “We’re using our stories and putting them on the world.” Concern about the use of models is articulated by Anne in her final comment, but the exact nature of the concern remains unclear. Is she worried about the distinction between "made up" models and "reality" (as in the first video clip)? Or is she expressing a more sophisticated concern about the limitations of models in general?

While both Anne and Cindy articulate some rather expert-like ideas about the nature of science and the development of scientific understanding, there are some interesting differences that emerge from the discussion. While Anne routinely refers to other (often famous) scientists (e.g., Einstein, Feynman, physics bloggers) throughout the discussion, Cindy seamlessly shifts the discussion from these other scientists back to herself and her own process (thereby implicitly identifying herself as a scientist/scientific thinker). While I haven’t had the opportunity to observe video of all the UE2 participants, my sense is that Cindy might be one of the most sophisticated as far as teacher empowerment and metacognition are concerned. It would be very interesting to see where she was with some of these ideas when she participated in UE1.

Clip 4: Noodle (June 30). Due to time constraints, this clip wasn’t shown. However, it was discussed in passing. Several of us felt that the presentation by the earthquake group (Scott and Anne) on the final day of class was both uncomfortable and unproductive. This made me revisit the video clip from the previous day. In the clip, Cindy (who is participating in discussions with the earthquake group) expresses her concern about the energy story (or stories) associated with earthquakes. Scott introduces a noodle analogy to support the plausibility of thermal energy ultimately transforming into elastic energy.

The transcript is below.

Cindy: Well, I think that there's parts of the lithosphere which is is constantly in a state of change due to its contact with the mantle. But, how that affects the entire lithosphere, because by the time we get to the subsurface we're at a constant, what is it, 62 degrees or something like that I mean there in temperate climates and then in frozen climates it's another temperature.

Cindy: But, umm, it it the heat somehow does disperse. But there are so many energy stories here. But it's it's I I don't know where you would begin, honestly.

Anne: Well, I guess we were beginning...

Scott: It's like a spaghetti noodle.

Anne: Yeah we were beginning with that [looks at whiteboard].

Scott: A spaghetti noodle is matter. Think of this as a spaghetti noodle. Then you put it in hot water or steam it and it becomes elastic. It starts bending when thermal energy is applied to it.

Cindy: Okay.

Anne: That's good, that's that's a good graphic for for the mantle.

Scott: Take a lasagna noodle

Anne: Yeah that's a good one.

Scott: And and that that's exactly, and that if you apply steam to it, it's gonna it's gonna start...

Anne: And if you let it cool it gets hard again.

Scott: And then when it cools down and it's at rest again and the and the thermal energy leaves, it dissipates.

Cindy: So, so I would say that you are starting with thermal energy.

Scott: That's what we started with the thing.

Anne: No, we we were, but to do it in an energy theater we don't have enough of the ropes.

Scott: Well, you don't don't...

Anne: We need more than three, right?

Scott: Yeah, don't let don't let the ropes don't let the ropes throw you.

Anne: So do you think we should redraw it?

Many (most?) features of Scott’s analogy are incorrect, but it does seem to move Cindy away from some of her concerns (which is likely not a good thing). What seems to be most interesting, particularly in light of the presentation the next day, is the fact that Cindy is trying to make connections and engage in sensemaking whereas Scott seems to be comfortable articulating isolated facts (e.g., thermal energy in the core and flexing of the plates). Indeed, Scott's noodle analogy serves to link these facts superficially and in essence circumvents the relevant mechanisms involved in the earthquake scenario. This clip made me think about classifying individuals as generators of scientific knowledge and collectors of scientific knowledge (likely inspired by Gallas as noted below). Cindy generally seems to be in the former category and Scott tends to fall into the latter category. While Scott knows a whole lot about earthquakes, he and Anne couldn’t foster a sensemaking discussion during the presentation of their energy storyboard (in contrast to many of the other presentations).

Two quotes from Gallas [1] seem particularly relevant to this discussion of Scott’s role in this interaction and the presentation:

“This is a very raucous discussion. I notice that all the children are participating except for Donald, our most knowledgeable science buff.”

“Perhaps the talks violate their sense of what science is. In other words, they have been prepared before entering school to feel ‘scientific.’ For them, science is like saving money in a bank: Acquire an extraordinary amount of information, and that makes you scientific.”

In this episode and in the presentation, however, something slightly different seems to be happening. The rapid sharing by Scott (and Anne) of collected information appears to be shutting down the sensemaking and productive “science talk” of the other teachers (e.g., Cindy). Several teachers (and videographers and the instructor, for that matter) were noticeably frustrated during the presentation. This clip and the earthquake presentation raise an interesting question about the extent to which one’s perception of what it means to do science can impact instruction (and therefore student empowerment).

What’s next? It seems that a systematic longitudinal (case study) examination of teachers’ (1) statements about science in multiple contexts, (2) behavior/roles in groups, and (3) instruction in their classrooms is needed. Such work will contribute to the development of a better understanding of the role of professional development experiences (such as the Energy Project) on teacher empowerment and student empowerment. (A final open question: How does one examine the role of the presence or absence of a worksheet on teacher empowerment?)

References

1. Gallas, Talking Their Way into Science: Hearing Children’s Questions and Theories, Responding with Curricula (New York: Teachers College Press, 1995).

2. Bellous & Pearson, “Empowerment and Teacher Education,” Studies in Philosophy and Education 14, 49-62 (1995).

3. Sprague, “Critical Perspectives on Teacher Empowerment,” Communication Education 41,181-203 (1992).