Pedagogical considerations for classifying energy

At the end of the first UE2 session, the class discussed a list of different kinds of energy.  Several teachers said that their practices for understanding energy would be dependent on pedagogical concerns, including students' needs and state standards.  In this passage, the teachers are discussing Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) -- knowledge about how to teach physics to a particular student demographic -- as opposed to simply content knowledge.  My suggestion is that in this context, content knowledge cannot be separated from PCK, since in-service elementary school teachers are always thinking about their teaching.  Thus, the teachers will filter everything they learn by asking "how am I going to teach this?"  (This is just a hypothesis at this point.)

One pedagogical issue centered on what I would call "provisional" instruction (targeted at the needs of a particular audience) vs. "definitive" instruction (scientifically correct.)  In the quote below, Joan contrasts the terms "food energy" and "chemical energy":

Joan: "I can see it both ways, I think kids can handle a change in definitions, it's just like in math, first they learn, you know, what, "flip", and as they get older, it's a "reflection" or something.  [...] So you feel like if you start with food energy, you could -- if they get a little older you could say  - another, more fancier word for that is -- I can see both ways."

In other words, students first learn a concept using ordinary language and examples ("flip" or "food energy".)  This instruction is only provisional; the definitive terms would be "reflection" or "chemical energy."  According to Joan, the instructor's terminology should be guided by what the students "can handle."  Joan is saying that students can handle a change from the provisional to the definitive terminology, in contrast with Alia's opinion:

Alia:  I think if it's chemical energy, we should refer to it as such, so even when they get older there's no misconceptions, and when they're like "what about food energy"?  Well, food energy, that's chemical energy -- well I thought it's food energy -- and then there's -- might be some confusion.

Alia feels that students need consistency, and that changing terminology would cause confusion.  A common property of provisional instruction is its simplicity; Tim points out that food energy is not on the class's list, but perhaps it should be:

Tim: It's a very big list.  In Seattle anyway, we talk a lot about food energy, because it's simple.  For kids to understand.

Another pedagogical consideration would be state standards.  Tim argues that the term "food energy" is desirable because it is required by the standards:

Tim: But the science standards specifically require them to be able to, kids to be able to draw a food chain showing the transfer of energy.  (Eleanor: Okay.)  And it's called the food chain -- so, you see where (Eleanor: And do they (have to?) label that) for them to meet standards they have to understand that food has energy (Eleanor: Right), and it's being, and it goes from organism to organism (EC: Right.)  So that's, that's the standard.  So that's why I wonder -- ha ha ha.  About that language.