Objects vs. Energy

On Tuesday afternoon in the UE1 class, there was an interesting thread in the class discussion that centered on how physical objects should be involved in talking about energy processes.  I was struck by how their dramatically their language shifted throughout the day.  Right after lunch when they were discussing the energy processes they'd observed outside, Table 2 was having a hard time distinguishing between the movement of energy from one place to another and the movement of physical objects from one place to another. Energy cycles were being conflated with the water cycle, and the cycling of gasses in the atmosphere.

Note in this clip when Roxanne points out that the "cycle" that Jon is describing isn't about energy.  Below is the diagram they created, which has labels of energy, but is clearly representing the physical objects / processes involved in their scenario.   

Later, when negotiating features, Table 2 came up with the category of "Physical Manifestation" and had a discussion about the difference between things that can be observed in the physical world and the "causes" of these things (which I think was their idea of energy at that point?).  Miranda especially did not want to stop talking about this feature, which for her included both "matter" and "evidence".  At the end, Heather suggested that heat and sound and light are physical manifestations and Miranda said, "Yes!"

During the whole-class discussion, Miranda proposed Physical Manifestation as a feature and defined it as "anything physical you can observe" such as a light bulb lighting up, a change in temperature, and sound.  Heather also interjects that it could be heat, which suggests that they're still a little unsure about the matter / energy distinction.  (See clip below.)

After this, the class got sidetracked by a conversation about potential energy, but circled back to the distinction between physical objects, observable phenomena, and forms of energy.  Someone else proposed "Pathway" as a feature and gave examples of the objects that the energy travels through.  At that point, Miranda, Heather, and Roxanne had a side conversation where they discussed the idea that energy is "not a thing," although it does travel through matter (see next clip).

 At the end of the day, the class came to a consensus (led by Lane) that several of the proposed features involved physical objects, and should therefore be in the same category, separate from energy transformations that have their own "starting" and "ending" points.  

Despite this clarification, on day 2, the theme came back again.  In the afternoon, Lane pointed out (starting around 1:55) that most of the energy tracking diagrams show both physical objects and forms of energy very prominently.  Only one group (Table 1) had decided to minimize the salience of physical objects (by representing them with boxes) and emphasize the energy transfers.  He noted that there isn't a "right or wrong" way to do this, but that there may be some use in separating representations of physical processes from a "force story" or an "energy story".  As the day progressed, the distinction between forms of energy (and what energy is doing) and physical evidence of energy's presence seemed to become clearer for the teachers. The Energy Tracking diagrams that Table 2 drew throughout the week are good evidence of this, but I won't include them here b/c this post is already too long!