This blog post is written by both Kristy and Jessica. Jessica’s font is this. Kristy’s font is this.
Thursday of last week, while observing the morning E2 session, Kristy and I witnessed two rather independently striking group interactions. We thought the dynamics in these groups were certainly different but we were each unsure exactly how they were different. Rachel's post brings up some positioning difference in each of these interactions. Rachel’s other post starts to think about the “not-working-ness” of Stamatis’ group interaction. I’m really interested in this topic, as well as the working-ness of Leslie’s group interaction. This post aims to identify some of the differences between these two group interactions.
Here’s the context: the instructors had asked each group to 1) create the energy story for a block being pushed across a frictionless surface and 2) to motivate the reason why each energy transformation occurred in this story. Both clips are about 4 minutes long, and although by cutting these episodes to that length we think we've lost some of what makes them interesting, hopefully the nature of each interaction remains intact.
Group 1 - This is 23:43 into the file called "E2 110811 1015 Don", which occurred at 10:38 am on Thursday 8/11. This file is given the name E2-Stamatis grp interaction-1.
[00:00:05.24] SV moves chair to center of group; Tim puts down white board, stops explaining to group;[00:00:16.08] SV says "no, no" and shakes his head in response to Tim pointing/explaining on white board.[00:00:25.29] Tim says something about increasing velocity; SV says "Okay, but that was not even what I was asking"[00:00:30.11] SV: "I'm asking the following. Somebody asks me to look at the books of apple..."Don: "Of apple?? The computers??" (already a bit confused/unsure)[00:00:44.29] SV: "So what i'm saying is that...i'm saying...so this um...quarter 1 earnings, quarter 2 earnings, here's quarter 3 earnings (SV is drawing on white board which is positioned in front of Derrick, Bruce, and Don...Tim and Jim are trying to look on)[00:01:07.09] SV: ("And actually I say that this here, this represents the ipad, this is the new iphone, so I have actually accounted for quarter 1 earnings, quarter 2 earnings...so that is the first part)[00:01:32.14] SV: The second part is that I have not managed to explain why there is this as opposed to that...Don: "Why the ipad or the iphone so much better? Is that your question?"[00:01:43.17] SV: "Yea, like i'm trying to understand..."Don: "the transformation? Why the potential energy turns to...kinetic"SV: I'm trying to come up with something so that if I want quarter 4 to be higher than quarter 3 I will be able to do more of the kind of stuff that gave rise to this than that...It's not an accounting question...it's a why question! Does that make any sense?[00:02:13.01] Don: Then are you saying that....Derrick: more detail?SV: ahhh..not more detail...I'm done with energy theater! (SV picks up white board and holds it central against his chest, from here on this becomes a central figure in conversation)Energy theater has run its course it seems to me...Don: Oh? Okay! (surprised)[00:02:32.19] SV: why would anyone expect that if i do this, I would see the KE goes up?...You are drawing the story to be consistent with what you know...How am I turning chemical energy into KE?Don: The theater doesn't tell that story!SV: I am doing that...but why?Don: Isn't that what we are trying to get away from with theater? We are trying to simplify it...to get away from the details...so we can at least look at where...what's really happening in just the basics of the energy?SV: Right...accounting and making sure that I have these numbers correct is a huge part of um...but it does not give us any guidance to go to the next oneDon: Right...i see![00:03:52.18] SV: points at front board; "We are trying to come up with another story that may not completely be an energy story"Don: How much detail...how far do you drill down?
Group 2 - This is 34:50 into file called "E2 110811 1017 Rebecca," which occurred at 10:51 am on Thursday 8/11. This file is given the name E2-Leslie grp interaction-2.
[00:00:05.17]John: What if we try this one...where there is no...well there is no force like this..[00:00:15.27] Nina: The C to K (turning block); well that's just what happens (Leslie grabs chair, sits down in center of group)[00:00:37.26] Cindy: The more I think about, the more I like the "process by which"...cellular respiration is the process by which kinetic energy is created[00:00:52.00] Nina: Oh, so we have this force...which enables the process...the force enables this to happen...(Lezlie is walking around the outside of the group)cellular respiration enables this...right? (Lezlie grabs chair to join the group, sits down between Cindy and John, Cindy scoots her chair over to incorporate Lezlie into group)[00:01:21.00] Rebecca: yea...it releases the energy in the glucose...[00:01:32.18] Leslie: can you describe that all?....when this happens, when a glucose turns into a muscle moving...[00:01:44.15] Rebecca: well photorespiration is the process by which glucose is broken down...energy stored in glucose is now stored in ATP...[00:02:02.18] Leslie: Is it still chemical energy?[00:02:02.12] Rebecca: It's still chemical energy b/c there is an extra phosphate group that is still attached....[00:02:27.22] Nina: The energy that pops off when it releases the ATP....so really what you're talking about is taking something like a hamburger and making it into a more accessible piece of matter...[00:03:00.15] Rebecca: mmhmm[00:03:08.00] Nina: This is a fairly linear explanation...[00:03:09.06] Rebecca: the more that I think about it, ATP could really be seen as a force...I need to draw something (goes to white board, which is placed in center of group, rest of group is looking on)[00:03:52.08] Nina: sort of like an earthquake! (entire group breaks out in laughter!)[00:03:57.21] Leslie: I'm glad you laughed! I can barely understand this...I really don't understand earthquakes![00:04:04.01] Lezlie: Everyone looks at Cindy like what do you think?? (laughing, group shared an inside joke that was generated earlier in class that day)
Jessica and I found these two clips to spark much discussion! In an attempt to summarize/organize everything we talked about, we will simply list a series of topics that we found particularly interesting when comparing these two different group interactions.
Change in Position of the Instructor
Both video clips were intentionally cut to show the point at which each instructor moved from being physically separate from the group arrangement to becoming a relatively central fixture of the group. In the clip of Group 1, Stamatis is originally seated on the outside of the group (at the very edge of the desks). Stamatis then moves his chair and seats himself at the very center of the group while shaking his head in response to comments made by Tim (to see a clip of what led up to this, see Rachel’spost). Tim then puts down the white board and Stamatis takes lead of the conversation. In the clip of Group 2, Leslie is originally seated on the edge of one of the desks, which positioned her to be “higher” than the rest of the group members. When Nina turns a block from “C to K,” and the rest of the group members enthusiastically reacting to this, Leslie stands up to find a chair in order to seat herself in the middle of the group.
Stamatis’ re-positioning may have been due to a conflict in the direction he wanted the group to take and the direction he felt the group was actually taking. Leslie’s re-positioning may have been due to a need to be physically closer to the conversation and a response to the recognition of “sparked” interest generated by the group. Also, I wonder if the group recognized Leslie’s change of position as “encouragement” to pursue their “sparked” interest.
The way each instructor changed position might also be significant. In Group 1 Stamatis moved from far to near and in Group 2 Leslie moved from higher to lower. This might parallel Stamatis’ shift into a more dominant role and Leslie’s intent to be more included in the group.
White board interactions
The motion of the white board in each episode is pretty interesting. It seems that the interaction with/on the white board indicates who is the expert/leader/dominant speaker at any given point in the group conversation. In Group 1 the board starts out with Jim (he writes on it and points to it) and then Stamatis begins to write on it, eventually maintaining a physical grasp on the board for a good portion of the group discussion. Stamatis holds the board against his chest, making both himself and the board central features of the discussion. The clip of Group 2 displays a rather different interaction between the members, Leslie, and the white board. John starts the clip by pointing and speaking, then Nina speaks and engages with blocks that have been placed on the white board, and thirdly Rebecca begins to draw on the white board while explaining how “ATP” can be seen as a “force”! Nina even moves the board closer to Rebecca and Leslie gives a pen to Rebecca, both prompting her to lead the discussion and thus draw on the white board. In the clip shown, Leslie has very minimal physical interaction with the white board even though it is placed directly in front of her.
Direction/framing of questions
During the interaction with Group 1, the majority of the questions posed were generated directly from Stamatis to the group, using the framework of “this is what I would like to know....”. In response to these questions, Derrick and Don posed questions back to Stamatis that were trying to clarify what Stamatis wanted to know, using the framework of “so is this what you mean?”. In comparison, the conversation of Group 2 consisted of several questions directed between group members along with questions generated by Leslie to the group. For example, Nina asks Rebecca to clarify “cellular respiration” while Leslie later asks Rebecca to describe “what happens when glucose turns into a muscle moving”. When comparing each of the 2 clips, Leslie’s questions seemed to position the group members as the information “providers”. She even acknowledged that she could “ barely understand this”, in reference to the subject matter of the group conversation. Stamatis’ questions seemed to suggest to the group that there was a specific answer which was being sought after. Group 1 became more concerned with interpreting the questions rather than generating responses. Thus, this objective of the Group 1 members seemed to limit the interaction between members.
Constructing an inner circle
Group 2 had an interesting moment at the end of the clip, in which all members burst out in laughter in response to a comment Nina made about “earthquakes”. “Earthquakes” was a topic Cindy brought up earlier that morning, during a whole class discussion. By Nina bringing up this idea again in the small group, but in a joking manner, the group became unified over an “inside” joke. Nina essentially brought a piece of the whole class culture into the “inner circle” of their group. The action of everyone laughing at Nina’s comment, including Cindy, revealed that this piece of knowledge created a common space that was only shared by the group. In a sense, everyone laughing at this comment also justified Cindy’s membership within the group, as it was Cindy’s original mentioning of “earthquakes” that enabled this entire moment in the first place. Although not shown in the clip, Cindy later becomes the “leader” of the conversation, perhaps a result of the empowering feeling she got from the “laughable moment” generated by Nina.
Change in Position of the Instructor
Both video clips were intentionally cut to show the point at which each instructor moved from being physically separate from the group arrangement to becoming a relatively central fixture of the group. In the clip of Group 1, Stamatis is originally seated on the outside of the group (at the very edge of the desks). Stamatis then moves his chair and seats himself at the very center of the group while shaking his head in response to comments made by Tim (to see a clip of what led up to this, see Rachel’s
Stamatis’ re-positioning may have been due to a conflict in the direction he wanted the group to take and the direction he felt the group was actually taking. Leslie’s re-positioning may have been due to a need to be physically closer to the conversation and a response to the recognition of “sparked” interest generated by the group. Also, I wonder if the group recognized Leslie’s change of position as “encouragement” to pursue their “sparked” interest.
The way each instructor changed position might also be significant. In Group 1 Stamatis moved from far to near and in Group 2 Leslie moved from higher to lower. This might parallel Stamatis’ shift into a more dominant role and Leslie’s intent to be more included in the group.
White board interactions
The motion of the white board in each episode is pretty interesting. It seems that the interaction with/on the white board indicates who is the expert/leader/dominant speaker at any given point in the group conversation. In Group 1 the board starts out with Jim (he writes on it and points to it) and then Stamatis begins to write on it, eventually maintaining a physical grasp on the board for a good portion of the group discussion. Stamatis holds the board against his chest, making both himself and the board central features of the discussion. The clip of Group 2 displays a rather different interaction between the members, Leslie, and the white board. John starts the clip by pointing and speaking, then Nina speaks and engages with blocks that have been placed on the white board, and thirdly Rebecca begins to draw on the white board while explaining how “ATP” can be seen as a “force”! Nina even moves the board closer to Rebecca and Leslie gives a pen to Rebecca, both prompting her to lead the discussion and thus draw on the white board. In the clip shown, Leslie has very minimal physical interaction with the white board even though it is placed directly in front of her.
Direction/framing of questions
During the interaction with Group 1, the majority of the questions posed were generated directly from Stamatis to the group, using the framework of “this is what I would like to know....”. In response to these questions, Derrick and Don posed questions back to Stamatis that were trying to clarify what Stamatis wanted to know, using the framework of “so is this what you mean?”. In comparison, the conversation of Group 2 consisted of several questions directed between group members along with questions generated by Leslie to the group. For example, Nina asks Rebecca to clarify “cellular respiration” while Leslie later asks Rebecca to describe “what happens when glucose turns into a muscle moving”. When comparing each of the 2 clips, Leslie’s questions seemed to position the group members as the information “providers”. She even acknowledged that she could “ barely understand this”, in reference to the subject matter of the group conversation. Stamatis’ questions seemed to suggest to the group that there was a specific answer which was being sought after. Group 1 became more concerned with interpreting the questions rather than generating responses. Thus, this objective of the Group 1 members seemed to limit the interaction between members.
Constructing an inner circle
Group 2 had an interesting moment at the end of the clip, in which all members burst out in laughter in response to a comment Nina made about “earthquakes”. “Earthquakes” was a topic Cindy brought up earlier that morning, during a whole class discussion. By Nina bringing up this idea again in the small group, but in a joking manner, the group became unified over an “inside” joke. Nina essentially brought a piece of the whole class culture into the “inner circle” of their group. The action of everyone laughing at Nina’s comment, including Cindy, revealed that this piece of knowledge created a common space that was only shared by the group. In a sense, everyone laughing at this comment also justified Cindy’s membership within the group, as it was Cindy’s original mentioning of “earthquakes” that enabled this entire moment in the first place. Although not shown in the clip, Cindy later becomes the “leader” of the conversation, perhaps a result of the empowering feeling she got from the “laughable moment” generated by Nina.
This is excellent stuff, Jessica and Kristy! I hadn't thought carefully about your 'direction/framing of questions' stuff. I like how you put that, and now I want to re-watch some of the videos I clipped.
ReplyDelete