Issues with Newest Version of QuickTime for Windows.

The newest version of Windows QuickTime doesn't work with Inqscribe. Here are the directions for downloading the old version of QuickTime so you can still use Inqscribe:

http://blogs.inquirium.net/inqscribe/2012/07/bugs-in-quicktime-7-7-2-for-windows/

Robertson I-RISE Congress Presentation

I titled my talk "Much Ado About Snippets" because I came in looking for something specific (more on this later) and mostly found snippets, rather than sustained conversation.  And I'm not sure yet what to do with them.

My research since coming to SPU has been shaped by a number of specific goals that I articulated at the beginning (and over the course) of the year: 

And although I feel I've made quite a bit of progress toward research paradigms and responsiveness, I've made little progress toward nature-of-science-y stuff (the bullets in red).  I was hoping to use my time as an I-RISE scholar to collect and clip video that I could use next year toward those goals.  In particular, I wanted to find at least one sustained conversation involving multiple participants (since I think learning is co-constructed), especially one in which the participants are surprised or frustrated (since I think surprise or frustration indicates violated expectations, and it seemed to me that this would be a good place to start to look for shifts in perceptions).

Instead, I found mostly snippets.

So I asked my fellow I-RISE scholars to help me think about what to do next.

We watched two episodes, the first that felt snippet-y to me and the second that felt more like a sustained conversation.

 (This episode can be found in the post linked here, and a copy of the transcript can be found here.)

 (And this episode can be found in the post linked here, and a copy of the transcript can be found here.)

Although I didn't get to it, I prepared a slide that described a few projects I feel inspired to do.

UE2: Theory vs law

Episode title: UE2 120702 1023 T2 theory vs law

(Loose) transcript: [00:00:00.00] Michelle: I always thought the law is up here, and then the theories are down here.  But after what I read, it's like it's reversed.
Gayle: I think it's that the theories are up here, and it's a repeatable occurrence that makes it a law.
Alia: Yeah.

[00:00:13.25] Gayle: You know, it's gravity was a theory until many people proved it, right?  And then it becomes a law.
Michelle: But that's what I...
Tim: That's what I'm struggling with, um, but then I read somewhere that there's.  Actually, here, just Google it.  Difference between a theory and a law, and a law explains a phenomenon.  Or something, and a theory is (inaudible).  Yeah.

[00:00:36.22] (Several people talking at once.)
Wendy: It's like the difference between a force and energy.
Alia: Law seems like every (inaudible).
Tim: (inaudible) Google it.

[00:00:42.18] Alia: Every time it's tested, it comes up the same, so therefore it's never been proven untrue, so maybe that's a law.
Michelle: Well, the thing that I thought was limiting about the law was it said it only applies in very, very specific situations...
Alia: Mmhm.
Michelle: ...whereas a theory can be a lot more broad.

[00:01:01.24] Alia: Mmhm.
Michelle: So that's what made me think that a theory was a bigger deal than a law.
Alia: Oh, see I thought the other way around, was that a theory was...
(Laughing.)

[00:01:08.24] Alia: ...that a theory was...
Michelle: Only on Mondays.
Alia: A theory, I thought a theory was like somebody's idea based on evidence, but that it, but that there's, maybe nothing to prove it untrue, per se.

[00:01:21.10] Michelle: Well, doesn't it sound like a law would be a lot more accepted than a theory?  A theory is still...
Alia: Yeah.
Gayle: Yeah.  Right.
Michelle:...well we're still guessin' about this, and we're still tryin' to prove it.  But a law!  Done deal.

[00:01:28.16] Alia: Exactly.
Tim: Which get, this is really good actually. (Reading:) 'A scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon that says.  Like, for instance, Kepler's laws of planetary motion describe the motion of planets but they do not explain why they are that way.  A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon.' 

[00:01:49.18] Alia: So one's observed and one's not?
Tim: So a law is a description of it, a theory is an attempt to explain...
Michelle: An explanation.
Tim:...why it's happening.

[00:01:57.22] Gayle: Oh, that's not right.
(?): Well that don't make sense.
(?): It doesn't make sense.
Tim laughing.

[00:02:01.29] Michelle: Well, you just get right on there and edit that sucker.
Alia: That does not make sense to me.
Tim: Sure it does!
Alia: So this one's saying that it's not observed or that this one is.

[00:02:08.23] Tim: A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon.  Just describing it, not trying to figure out why it's happening.
Alia: (inaudible) explanation.
Michelle: Right.
Tim: It's just a description.

[00:02:17.20] Michelle: Right.  Right.
Alia: Oh.
Tim: (Drops pen) Gravity.  The pen falls toward the earth.  A theory would be why is this pen falling.
Gayle: I think the earth is sucking, or maybe it's just the table.
Tim: Yeah.

[00:02:30.12] Gayle: That is interesting.
Tim: Yeah!  It is interesting.
Gayle: And now we're the smartest table in the room.
Alia: I want to see a different, I want to see a different one.
Michelle laughing.

[00:02:39.03] Tim: A different definition.
Gayle (playfully): I don't like that one.
Alia: Yes.
Tim: Okay.  WikiAnswers.
(Gayle says something inaudible.)

[00:02:43.01] Tim: Which you know is very hit and miss.
Alia: Well, what about some sort of, like, um, government website or something?
Tim: Cause we can trust the government.
Alia laughing. Says: Well, more than Wikipedia.

[00:02:53.07] Wendy: That's what I would have said a law was.
Tim: Ah!  So this person...
Wendy: Something the government (inaudible).
(Michelle laughs.)

[00:02:57.25] Tim: A law is a readily observable fact about something.  Um...
Michelle: Yeah, Kepler was really, you know, governmental republican, I'm sure.
Tim:...so it's talking about what you observe.  A theory is an advanced hypothesis, blah blah blah, it's a stupid definition.
(?): Blah blah blah

Commentary: Just before this episode starts, Alia has commented that she was surprised when she completed the (VNOS) pre-survey, because it asked her questions that seemed to have little to do with the UE1 and UE2 courses she took before.  She was wishing out loud that they would have taken the time as a class to discuss them, because she's not sure she understands the questions.  In particular, she wants to know what is the difference between a theory and a law.  (By the way, as a note to self, many of the teachers at this table described Googling their answers to the pre-surveys.)  Michelle responds with her answer to this question, and this is where the episode starts.

This was a fun video for me to watch -- I love their playfulness and their laughter.  (And Alia is participating!  A rare treat to hear what she thinks.)  Several things stuck out to me:

• The different ways that the teachers talked about laws and theories.  Michelle talks about one being "higher than" the other; Gayle talks about one being a refinement of the other; and Tim talks about them serving different purposes.
• The language that Alia and Michelle use in the first half of the episode: prove, guessing, done deal.
• Alia's asking to see another website (perhaps a government one) -- this suggests to me that she does not accept what Wikipedia (or whatever site they're looking at) says at face value.  She challenges it and wants more information.

I showed this episode yesterday during my I-RISE Congress presentation, and other scholars offered the following comments:

• We wanted to know why we care about the difference between a theory and a law.  (We scientists don't really even know the difference.)  I pointed out that even if we scientists don't know the words, we do know that there are different kinds of things -- explanations, descriptions, etc. -- and I think that's the spirit of the question (and the conversation that Alia, Gayle, Tim, Michelle, and Wendy are having).
• Rachel (?) noticed that looking stuff up on the internet did them no harm -- they sense-make about it and evaluate what they found.
• Brandon felt that Michelle's comment to Gayle about editing the Wiki was dismissive; someone else felt it was empowering ("You go girl!").
• We wondered what the ambiguous joking was a sign of -- epistemic distancing?  Something else?
• Renee Michelle (?) got the sense that the teachers in the episode feel that they can make progress on this question, and that is significant to her.

UE1: Let's be vulnerable and learn

Episode title: UE1 120628 1000 T5&ET vulnerable and learn

(Loose) transcript: [00:00:00.00] Ana: Can, can I also encourage you, we've talked a little bit about that there's, we're here as adults learning adult content and then but just as teachers, we're also always thinking about how can I do this in my classroom?  How does this fit in my curriculum?  Or let's try to (?) work with my kids.  But we have, as instructors, we've planned this class for adult learners.  So the focus isn't, if we had the time, we wouldn't bring in 28 fifth graders and do this with them, necessarily.  You know, so this, we're not saying, oh, this is how you teach energy to students.  So, it is, and this is definitely planned as a class for adult learners.

[00:00:41.22] Ana: And we will certainly (?) in my classroom, use Energy Theater, and we know that teachers who have taken this class before have used a number of these strategies, tied to their curriculum in their classrooms.  (inaudible) So just be sure you're still kind of keeping those things separate.

[00:01:03.23] Mike: And that's, um, maybe that should be made, maybe pound that into our brains a little more when we come in.  It is really difficult to take off that teacher hat.  I mean whenever, I find that when I read anything, even if I'm trying to read for pleasure, that it's still seeping in in how can I use this in my instructional life, in my teaching life?

[00:01:25.02] Mike: So it's really hard to take off that teacher hat.  Maybe that when you walk in, you should be very, you know, wear a little teacher hat and rip it off and light it on fire! (Laughter) Something to show us that we're, we are, we need to be sitting here as just learners and absorbing the stuff and getting it, rather than analyzing it as professionals.  Because it's very difficult to take off that hat.

[00:01:50.14] (I can't really tell what's going on, too much talking.)
Ana: Lighting it on fire may not make a difference.  We just, this is what teachers, this is what we do.
Lezlie: Yes, Ana mentioned it before, too.
Ana: I'm always hammering on it. (Lezlie says something)  I said it three times on Monday...it's just what we do as teachers.
Lezlie: Yeah.

[00:02:08.09] Lezlie: Our first thought is how does this work in my classroom?  How would it, what do I do with my kids?  And we can be better about reminding you, wait a minute here, we're not there yet.  We'll let you be, really be teachers for the last part of the day today, and some more on Friday.
Someone off camera: I'm okay just being a person right now and not being a teacher.  We don't ever have to do that, I'd be okay.  As far as I'm concerned, this is my vacation (inaudible).

[00:02:36.11] Lezlie: Yeah.
Douglas: I just wanted to say that, you know, I learned a lot, and I don't know if I would have understood it as well had you done it any other way.  So for me, this is really working.  It's been a positive experience.
Lane: I just want to follow up on Ana's point to sort of (inaudible).  Um, I think while we're certainly not, this course wasn't structured with the idea to be, to be replicated with fifth graders, um, I think there are lots of ways, we all feel like there are elements of what we're doing.  Because there are things in teaching and learning that are universal.

[00:03:23.11] Someone (Lezlie?): Or just good practice.
Lane: So I think, you know, for example, the, while you wouldn't negotiate it the way we did with your own students, the concept of idea first and language later, I think, is something that (inaudible).  I mean, the idea that it's frustrating to be using words before you agree on the meaning, that's something that is true of all of us and I think possibly could apply really well to ELL learners in the sense that once they have an idea.  Cause while they don't have access to the language of science, they may have even less access than other learners, they certainly have the language with which to construct their ideas.

[00:04:27.01] Lezlie: And they have access to the experience and to pictures and to those kinds of things, too.  Um, Sean had his hand up.
Sean: Yeah, I was gonna say as teachers, I think oftentimes it's nice, especially in this kind of curriculum, to know what you're talking about when you're looking for those strategies, questioning and getting kids thinking about topics that they haven't.  On the other side of it, you probably don't have the time to teach this way all the time in your classroom.  So you need to be able to lead students to the answers, if possible, or to see what they're, what kind of information they have provided that you can build on.

[00:05:09.25] Sean: And if you don't have the answers, if you haven't gone through the learning process, which is what I think this class is really about is us as learners learning to (?) back on our own teaching strategies at the same time to help students learn better.  Without that, I don't think you can be as powerful a teacher.
Lezlie: Thanks for sharing that.

[00:05:28.27] Jeannie: I was just, I think the timing of this is great for us to try to not think of being teachers, cause it's easier every day to think of summer vacation.  But it also helps me realize that really, as an elementary school teacher, I don't have the responsibility so much to teach content of science, but to teach kids how to think scientifically or to help them continue to think scientifically.  Because I think from toddlers on they already do.  So to help them have this great experience about how wonderfully fun it is to, and have all these different instructional strategies and to, and then go forth with this great ability to do inquiry science so that, you know, they'll get a lot of content later.

[00:06:08.22] Lane: As a college instructor, I always, I'm much less concerned about the content that the students learn in college than I am about the fact that they still love science and feel empowered as scientists.  And have a sense of what, what science is, how it works.  And if they come to my class with that, you know, you can, we can work out (inaudible).
Lezlie: Go ahead.

[00:06:42.02] Dan: I think (inaudible) this discussion, that we as adult learners, the bad habits that we might pick up or things like (inaudible) for me it's that I don't want to participate in any discussion if I don't have the right language for it because I don't want to sound like an idiot.  So all of those stories that I think we begin to tell ourselves along the way.

[00:07:02.26] Dan: Whereas kids, if we can still help them to still be playful, and to explore, to take risks, and to suspend that judgment.  You know, it's like Ana said, I remember her saying, yeah, easier said than done.  (inaudible) It's what we do over the course of time to be intelligent, functioning people.  To appear knowledgeable about things.  But to take that risk, I guess...

[00:07:32.28] Dan: ...and for me, it's like, since I don't know this subject, it's not pretending.  It's that fear of, okay, let's just be vulnerable.  And learn.  For learning's sake.


Commentary: Renee Michelle posted about a portion of this clip here, and I was so curious to know more that I went back to the video records to find what happened before and after this.  There was another piece that was significant to me, so I went ahead and clipped it for my records.

As context, just before the clip begins, a teacher is talking about how she teaches mostly ELL students, so it's very hard for her to imagine not giving them words before concepts, since they just don't have the words.  (This was noteworthy to me as well, as was Lezlie's and Lane's beautiful response that they have their experiences to draw from.)

That extra, significant piece in the clip was when Mike comments on how difficult it is for him to take off his teacher hat.  I've said elsewhere (though I can't find where at the moment) that I think it's very difficult to separate teachers' science identities from their science teacher identities.  I love that Ana oh-so-gently reminds the teachers that they are here primarily as learners and how this seems to melt away some of the frustration that I sensed in the room just before she said it.

I don't yet know what to do with this clip, other than to appreciate Mike's candidness, and to feel like he's affirmed something that I (and many others) have sensed.

UE1: Scientists make stuff up, and so can we

Episode title: UE1 120627 1142 T4&ET scientists make stuff up

(Loose) transcript: [00:00:00.00] Lane: And so, and I just wanna be a little bit, I want to sort of push on us to be a little more specific.  It seems like potential energy can mean a lot of things, even in this scenario.  It seems like potential energy or stored energy could mean a lot of things.  Can we come up with a more specific way of describing the stored energy in the rubber band?

[00:00:20.07] Several teachers: Elastic.
Lane: Yeah. So elastic would be, would I think we've got elastic up on our.
Lezlie: It's over here.
Lane: Oh yeah. 
(People saying that they don't have elastic on the list.)

[00:00:33.11] Lezlie: We have spring energy.
Lane: But you know, we can play (?), we can be quick with feature talk, right?  I mean, if we feel like stretching a rubber band, um, the energy that's stored in a rubber band when it's stretched seems like elastic, captures elastic energy captures that idea, and we're all comfortable with that, then we just.  That's a new feature.
Mike: So I'm not comfortable.

[00:01:04.20] Lane: You're not comfortable.  Yeah (inaudible).
Mike: I'm uncomfortable because when I'm, I'm opening my brain learning stuff, and I don't want to learn the wrong words.
Lane: Right.  Ahhh.
Mike: I don't wanna (inaudible).  So I wanna...
Teacher in background: Amen!

[00:01:16.01] Mike:...I wanna know the proper terms so that when I convey it to my students, I'm not conveying something that's people talk rather than something that's feature talk.  I want feature talk buried in my brain so that...
Lane: Yeah, yeah.
Someone in background: Content before words (?).

[00:01:31.04] Mike:...that makes me nervous that I'm going to start calling it elastic energy rather than stored mechanical energy.
Lane: Right.
Mike: So that, that's (inaudible).

[00:01:43.13] Another teacher in background: That's what scientists do, don't they?  They just make stuff up. (Laughter) As they go.
Teacher in black sweater on camera: And I will argue teachers, too.
Another teacher in background (same as above): If it makes sense, right?

[00:02:00.11] Lane: (?)
Teacher in black sweater on camera: Well they gotta put names on stuff.
Lane: I'm hearing two different, um, I hear you, I hear you saying we can make stuff up as long as we have consensus on it.  But I also hear, you know, we, we have to be able to communicate with a wider scientific community.

[00:02:16.11] Another teacher in background (same as above, I think): There is no proper name for that other than what's agreed upon by the group.
Lane (in response to ?): Um, I don't think God named this.  Or if God did name this energy, I have no access to it.
Woman on camera in V-neck dress: It's also what we're doing now and what we know at the end of the day.  You know, I mean, so we're kind of in the middle of things, so you have to keep things in the mind, that we're in the middle.  So, you know, by the end of the day, hopefully we will...

Comments: Someone flagged this episode for me, and I clipped it because it reminded me of this post from last year.  There were two moments that I considered to be particularly significant: (1) the piece where Mike expressed his discomfort with learning the wrong terms, and (2) when the guy off camera says that scientists make stuff up. 

I showed this clip in my I-RISE Congress presentation, and others were struck by the same two pieces.  Someone commented that Mike's statement evoked an image of cutting yourself open and being afraid of letting the wrong stuff in.  Not only this, the pollutant is contagious -- it might also infect his students.  Others followed up by pointing out the multiple accountabilities that teachers have -- to students, to parents, to state standards -- and that Mike may be asserting that he's not a scientist; he's a teacher.  (This sense that teachers are accountable to and constrained by a ton of external stuff is echoed Dan Levin's dissertation, which I read on Wednesday.  He issues a call for teachers to be accountable to science first.) 

Someone else distinguished between saying that scientists make stuff up and we can make stuff up.  It wasn't clear to us whether the guy off camera that says "scientists make stuff up" was sincere or playful.  (I suspect sincere.)  Regardless, there's laughter and playfulness that follows, and we wondered whether these were signs of epistemic distancing.

Episode title: UE1 120627 1458 T4 if we're making it up ourselves

(Loose) transcript: [00:00:00.00] Lane (I think): Is the rearrangement evidence of presence or evidence of change?
Teacher on camera (white shirt): That's why I was just saying a reaction was presence, but I don't know.  I wasn't saying change, I was saying presence, it's a chemical reaction.  (Snaps fingers)  I mean with a battery, it just (snaps) does it, right?  It doesn't need to warm up, like there's tubes, you know those old (inaudible).  You know it just (snaps) there's a chemical reaction.

[00:00:29.00] Teacher off camera: I would agree with chemical reaction.  If we're voting, if we're making it up ourselves.


Comments: The events in this episode take place in the afternoon of the clip shown above.  I thought it was significant that the teacher off camera talks about making stuff up.  I'm not sure (how can I be?) whether or not this statement refers directly to the one earlier, but if it did, it would seem significant to me -- that the teacher has been empowered to 'act like a scientist' in her choosing terms that make sense to her to describe a scenario.

What are we talking about? (Forms of energy)

This episode comes from the very first Energy Theater of the week. It's the morning of the second day, and the energy story they're considering is Lane's hand pushing a cart (but ends before he lets go). This group decided on the objects very quickly (hand and car), then decided they'd all be potential energy changing to kinetic energy in the hand, transferring to kinetic energy in the car. After they're performed it once on their own, Lane come by.

This episode is titled UE1 120627 1142 T4&T1 1050 1st How far back.

Vickie: Yeah, so, what's

Theren: Hold on, wait, what was that?

Vickie: Maybe I'm just being too basic here. I'm just thinking what's making that car move? It's my force.

(Kelly) Purple shirt: Right.

Vickie: And my force

Kelly: Where are you getting the force?

Purple: Some sort of energy.

Marcie: You're expending calories-

Vickie: Right.

Marcie: - in order to do that.

Vickie: Right. So I see where you're getting chemical energy, or food energy, I'm getting that so how far back do you want us to go on this, like?

Tina: Remember we're taking one little s-

Marcie: Because I-

Tina: Like this [click].

Vicki: That's what I'm saying. It's just the finger, what we're, what energy's in the finger.

Tina: Finger.

Lane: Well, yeah, I, I-

Vickie: It goes into the car.

Lane: I get you, but I think, well my answer to that is,

Tina: We want one trip.

Vickie: Yeah.

Lane: is in some sense. I'm sort of giving you two answers to that.

Vickie: Yeah.

Lane: A two-part answer.

Vickie: Okay.

Lane: One is, that when you're starting, you've decided the hand isn't moving.

Vickie: Right.

Lane: Yet. So it can't be kinetic.

Vickie: Right.

Lane: So it's gotta be that, that energy has to be something, right?

Vickie: Something, okay.

Lane: You have to get, you have to sort of name and you have to decide on a name. And, it also seems like, um, you, if you, if you call it potential, and it does seem to be [inaudible]

Vicke: Yeah

Lane: Right, it seems like there's a lot of, a lot of different things that that could be. A lot of different ways that it could store energy.

Vickie: So it could be chemical, right? Cause you need the food to make chemical-

Heather: Yeah.

Vickie: Parts work, and the chemical part of your body is what's making that finger move. Or is there a piece in there I'm not getting?

Sabina: I think there might be another piece in there.

Others: Yeah. [inaudible]

Sabina: I'm not sure. I think there's definitely chemical involved, but I don't know what happens from there. I think I'm missing. I don't get the stored energy part. The stored energy in your...

Heather: If we think of it at the chemical level-

???: Yeah.

Heather: What if we think of it on a chemical level, like on a molecular level. If you're thinking, I mean, I know calories aren't molecular, and all of that. But if you're thinking it takes calories to make the muscle, well not really, it takes calories, to, to, you have to use calories in order to move the muscle.

???: Mm-hmm

Heather: So in transferring that caloric energy, for a lack of a better term, cheese energy, granola energy [laughter].

Theren: Yes.

Heather: Whatever you want to call it.

Theren: Yes. Nice, okay.

Heather: Transferring it from one, that one place into the car, that's the transfer. But it's still, does the transfer, this is the question I was asking this morning, is it a parallel? Are transfer and transformation two different processes that happen in tandem?Because transfer means from one object to another. Transformation means change but does it always have to change? Because this is still kinetic to kinetic?

Vickie: But doesn't transfer mean from one object to the next, but the energy stays the same?

Heather: No, the energy staying the same would be a lack of transformation.

Vickie: Right, so it would be a transfer.

???: Transfer.

Heather: That's what I'm saying. So it would be a transfer. But the transformation,  so the, they're both going into objects. It's just one transforms and one transfers. [Because if you're transferring energy, it's gotta go somewhere, it's gotta go into something. So it's just, but the energy's staying the same. But if you're transforming, the energy's gotta go somewhere. But it's changing energies.

Vickie: Right.

Heather: Right?

I presented this at the Congress, and here were some of the observations people had:

• Heather asks "is it a parallel", meaning, can transfer and transformation happen at the same time? Energy Theater allows such a move, but standards don't allow it.
• In this episode, the participants do seem to agree that their task is to decide what the forms will be.
• We wondered why Lane decided to enter the conversation, and decided it was Vicki's question, directed at him, that invited him in.

I'll put my analysis of this episode in the post of my talk.

What are we talking about? (Well, it's not air pressure)

This episode shows a group discussing the whirlybird scenario that they saw the day before. After the demo outside, the class went into the lobby and made Energy Cube Diagrams of the scenario. The discussion after the Energy Cube Diagrams was the first that week to include gravitational energy.

This clip comes from the fourth day of the workshops. (It's the episode of UE1 120629 T6 912 Bugged me for years.)

Heidi: And that - yesterday, when we were down in the lobby, it confused me  because that totally made sense, until I started thinking about um, atmospheric pressure, because the closer you are to earth, the greater your atmospheric pressure is, and so like a barometer is gonna. It seems like a barometer would act just the opposite of something that was detecting gravity. I don't- That was confu-, I shouldn't even talk about that, but it's been confusing me.-

Sabina: Yeah, that [inaudible] answer your question, huh, that's gravitational.

Heidi: Because the more air you have above you-

Dan: More pressure-

Heidi: - the greater your- Yeah.

Sabina: Oh.

Heidi: And so it seems opposite of, then if we're thinking of pull of the earth, rather than push of from above. I guess that makes sense.

Dan: The pressure's higher above-

Kelly: I think, I think the pressure's another force that we're going to try to weed out here.

Heidi: Okay, good.

Kelly: We're like not even-

Heidi: I confused myself, so-

]Kelly: I mean we're not going to think about it.

Heidi: -I confused you guys.

Doug: I think, yeah, I think-

Kelly: This is, I think it's a good thing to ponder, but...

Doug: -putting it aside. Yeah, that would be good. It, I think it's, it's connected because we have an atmosphere plus gravity, and so gravity's pulling it down.

Heidi: Mm-hmm.

Doug: The air has weight.

Heidi: Mm-hmm.

Doug: And it's pushing down, it's being pushed, it's being pulled down, so it's pushing on what's below it, so that's the pressure. But I think it's good for us to suspend as many of those factors as possible-

Heidi: Right. Okay.

Doug: -because it allows us to...

Kelly: Yeah, I think it's a great idea to ponder.

Heidi: Yeah, I'm sorry.

Kelly: And I appreciate you having it, it's just...

Doug: I, once we-

Heidi: Sorry, talk about my confusion.

Kelly: No, I think it's great.

Dan: No, that's all these questions and things we have in our heads.

Doug: And I think once we get the basic story down, then as time allows, I think it would be great to get into that.

Heidi: Okay.

Dan: What if we put down those things, maybe just off the the side, so we don't lose-

Heidi: Okay.

Dan:- and not, not we're not valuing it, \but we can add it to the question board afterward-

Kelly: So, we want to put some like-

Dan: - like your questions as well.

Kelly: Confused, to ponder.

Hedi: Yeah.

Doug: Hah, hah, hah.

Dan: Not now.

Heidi: And I think the-

Kelly: Right.

Heidi: -the way you were saying, if you think of gravity as a pull rather than a push? That totally clears it up, because it's not something pushing from above. If it's pulling from below, that totally makes sense with the pressure and the gravity then. So, thank you. That's bugged me from year, thinking about that.

When I presented this episode at the Congress, we came up with the following questions and comments:

Some researchers were ambivalent: were there other group members really valuing Heidi's idea? There did not show that they understood Heidi's idea, and Kelly identifies it simply as a force, and therefore something we shouldn't discuss now (because the instructor have recommended not thinking about forces at this point).

Does Heidi feel bad? She presents the topic as one that she doesn't think they'll want to discuss, and apologizes repeatedly. At the end, when she thanks Doug, is she genuinely happy because she feels some clarification of her dilemma, or is she just sort of relieved that she won't be feeling bad (by bringing up an undesired topic).

Doug seems to want to talk about Heidi's idea of air pressure. Although he says they should set it aside, he explains his understanding of the connection of air pressure and gravity.

UE2: Are the laws the same in space?

Episode title: UE2 120628 1146 T7 Are the laws the same in space?

(Loose) transcript: [00:00:00.00] Alia: Well, okay...
Tim: Cause we know it's not turning into sound energy.
Alia: I don't know the answer to this question, but are the laws of energy the same in space as on Earth?  Probably not, so they don't follow the rules.

[00:00:14.27] Gayle: Well there are different forces.
Tim: Well they would have to be because they're laws.
Alia: Yeah, but they're laws...
Tim: Laws.
Alia: On our planet, per se.  And the laws of gravity and all that stuff changes on, on each planet, per se, so.

[00:00:30.11] Tim: Well the law doesn't change but the masses change, so the um.
Alia: Energy is neither created nor destroyed, does that law apply in outer space?
Tim: Yes.
Alia: It does?
Tim: I'm pretty sure it does, yeah.

[00:00:40.21] Alia: I mean, I don't know.
Sherry: It's a universal law.
Tim: Yeah.
Alia: I mean, do we know that as fact?

[00:00:45.24] Sherry: A rule.
Alia: As complete truth, like, no doubt about it, like.
Tim: Well that's, I have no proof of it, but that's what I've...
Sherry: I'm not even convinced.

[00:00:51.15] Tim: ...been taught.
Sherry: Yeah, that's right.  But I'm not convinced...
Alia: Yeah, see, I have no idea.
Sherry:...it's neither been created nor destroyed.  I'm struggling with that.  Just plain and simple.  But, but I can believe it, and I've said that before.  So for...

[00:01:07.13] Alia: That's why I wanted to talk about the survey questions, because they were asking us, What's the difference between a theory and a law, and what makes a law?  And, cause a lot of this stuff is just really just people's ideas based on evidence.
Sherry: It is.  It is, it's just theory.  It's maybe all theory.
Alia: It's based, you know, and hard to prove, you know.

[00:01:24.10] Alia: And does it happen every, the same way every time or just as many times as they've done it?  Do you see what I mean?  So it's, something that you can't see or touch or whatever is hard to believe.
Sherry: That's right.  Only the evidence of change.  Evidence of its presence, evidence of change.  Otherwise, it's just blind faith.
Alia: Mmhm.

[00:01:52.00] Sherry: You know?  Like there's little...
Tim: Sounds like a religion to me!
Alia: I was just gonna say that!
Sherry: This is what I've said to my kids, to my students.  You know, really, there are little green men in here that you can't see.

[00:02:02.14] TIm: Mmhm.
Sherry: (Laughing) And I can say anything I want and then, but I have to, I have to have some evidence of it.


Commentary: This episode is clipped from the middle of Phase 1 described in Hunter's earlier post.  Alia (back left), Tim (front left), Gayle (front right), and Sherry (back right) have been briefly discussing sound energy, wondering whether they need to include molecules in their mental model, when Tim poses a question something like, "If you beat a drum in space, what happens to all the energy?  Does it turn into heat energy?"  Alia follows this with the question, "Are the laws of energy the same in space as on Earth?," which is where the clip starts.

I think that Alia asks the question as a response to the (implicit and reasonable) assumption that Tim makes that energy is conserved in space.  I hear her challenging him, wondering whether energy conservation (a 'law' of energy) is true for processes in space.

Things that stuck out to me about this clip:

• That Alia treats "law," "fact," and "complete truth, no doubt about it," as synonymous.  And that she distinguishes this "absolute truth" from patterns in people's observations.  Two things this brings to mind:
  (1) Her statement that "And the laws of gravity and all that stuff changes on every planet" feels to me very much aligned with the epistemological stance that 'science is a collection of facts and formulas.'
  (2) Her statement, "does it happen the same way every time or just as many times as they've done it," suggests to me that she thinks there is a real truth out there that is only imperfectly apprehended by humans. 
• Tim's assertion that "it's a law" implies that it's also true in outer space.  Which feels much less like 'science is a collection of facts and formulas' to me than Alia's statements.
• Sherry's example of the little green men.  I think what she means is that scientists don't just say anything they want (like that there are little green men in here); what they say means something because it's "backed up by evidence."

Models of Potential Energy

I want to present some examples of some of the models of potential energy (or gravitational energy) which the teachers discussed as they gathered in the lobby to compare Energy Cube diagrams.

In particular, three separate models of potential energy emerged: potential energy as stored energy, potential energy as always present, and the standard model of potential energy is something that kinetic can turn into. I want to simply post some examples of these three models to spark discussion. The teachers spent roughly half an hour negotiating these different models, trying to either select one over another or create a hybrid of multiple models and these clips are taken from different portions of the conversation.

I should add that a fourth model, that an object has the potential to have energy, did arise, however Lezlie was quick to directly address this issue.

To add some context for this discussion as a whole, the groups had observed Lane fire a whirlybird earlier in the afternoon. The students were tasked with picking two (roughly) consecutive moments (e.g. beginning to pull the elastic band back and having pulled it all the way back) and using the energy cubes to track the energy flow.

Let me begin with the model of potential energy as stored energy. Here is a clip of Michelle*. [UE1 120628 1550 Front&Lobby Stored Energy]. This statement occured shortly after Lezlie explicitly distinguished potential energy from the "potential to have energy." (the original video is "UE1 120628 1537 Front&Lobby." the time stamps are for this video.)

[00:13:54] Michelle: I like the word "stored" 'cause the rubber band is stretcehd. To me it's storing energy that it's going to be able to use. The potential, it's like you're saying anything can have potential, you know, but if it's stored energy, like in a battery or in a stretched rubber band, that means you can use that storage, like in a hibernating bear or your pantry, or your- you can use that.

I think one of the most interesting parts of this clip is that Michelle explicitly distances her model from the word "potential" preferring the word "storage." I think that Michelle chosing a more suitable word for her idea as the teachers negotiate the meaning of potential energy conveys a depth to her understanding. It is notable, also, that her model is not limited to elastic energy, but contains a wide range of objects in which energy can be stored.

Let me move on to the second model of potential energy: It is always present and only take over once enough kinetic energy has been transfered elsewhere. I should note that this seems to recal the "impetus" model of forces, though I don't mean to imply any particular stance towards misconceptions (I suspect many of you can guess, though). Here is Theron explaining this model [UE1 120628 1601 Front&Lobby Potential Always there]:

[00:24:45] Theron: What I think was the- the- kinetic energy of the whirly bird rocket thing was transfered through friction to air molecuels around it, is what I had in my head. And then the gravitational energy was constantly there. And then eventually, it's- the potential is gonna pull it back down.

Although this model, at first listen, seems to conflate energy with force (or impetus), an important thing to notice is that Theron maintains conservation: the kinetic energy all transforms into thermal energy. The question, however, becomes how does potential energy relate to other forms of energy in this model.

Finally, let me present a brief clip of Doug presenting his model of potential energy as somethign that kinetic energy can transform into. This model is closest to our standard conceptual model of potential energy [UE1 120628 1600 Front&Lobby Standard Model]

[00:24:10] Doug: after the rubber band has stopped transfering energy, at that point it would have had its maximum kinetic energy. But as it's ascending, that kinetic energy is transforming into potential energy. Because you're- you're going higher but you're slowing down. The higher you go, the slower you're going, but hte more potential energy you have.

As a teacher, this particular clip makes me want to jump up and dance. From the researcher perspective, I think it's interesting that Doug incorporates two particular elements into this model: a height dependance and a gradual transformation from kinetic to potential.

So, these are the three basic models of potential energy that I observed durign this discussion. The teachers spend a good deal of time negotiating these models. I plan on examining this process in more depth over the next few days. Lane and Lezlie, for their part, largely let the teachers debate among themselves, generally only clarifying points that teachers were making. I recommend watching the whole episode, especially after the third group presents their diagram.
*please correct me if I used the wrong names.

UE2: How we teach science is constrained by the MSP.

Episode #1 title: UE2 120628 1038 T2 Reflecting on NoS Metacognition Prompts

(Loose) transcript: [00:00:00.00] Michelle: What did you reflect on yesterday?
Joan: I reflected on the B questions, the nature of science.
Michelle: Oh!  So did I.  Okay.  I only got, I didn't do 'em in order.
Joan: I just went down the list on.  So I said science is grappling with ideas and understanding in our natural world and we're constructing how energy moves from our cup experiment, what is happening, and how to represent it.

[00:00:26.15] Michelle: I like grappling.  Beautiful word.  Um, let's see, (reading question:) do you ever feel you're being led to a specific answer?  No, absolutely not.  We have plenty of time to mull things over, and we revise and doubt and, you know, it's kind of refreshing this year to actually at the end get an answer...
Joan: Yeah.

[00:00:54.27] Michelle:...as opposed to last year.
Joan: Yeah.
Michelle: Um, number one (reading:), how does the work we've done (?)?  I said some of the times we're replicating what scientists do.  Like yesterday when we did the three probe thing, I thought that that was, you know, we collected data and analyzed and what not.  Um, most of the time I feel like it's more of an 'aha' moment.  I guess that's scientific, too.  More of what, we're focused a little more on the inquiry, discovery-type methods.  And then for number two,...

[00:01:37.15] Michelle: (reading:) What role does building the, you know, I said, man, I think that's kind of pivotal.
Joan: I said building a conceptual model helps us understand, step by step, what we are trying to understand.  Just thinking through something, oh I said, makes me feel like a scientist.

[00:01:53.27] Michelle: Oh, that's a good one.
Joan: You know, I was thinking, my daughter works, uh, in uh, for Harvard in part of the medical research, and she's on the administrative end of things, but it's, I was thinking it's interesting how much of research is grappling with problems and then just, you know, brainstorming and coming up with ways that they think might help something...

[00:02:20.01] Joan: And then, you know, and, so it's kinda interesting.  Because when you said you'd be surprised, you know, like, we're teaching the scientific method, you do this, you do this, you say.  They don't really follow that so much, because, especially with, she was, um, uh, part of surgical research, and so a lot of it is discovery while you're, and then they...

[00:02:47.13] Joan:...and trying it out and seeing it, and I know some of it's on rats, but it's a lot of, I have this idea and going and just trying it out and things like that.  So it's kind of interesting how the.
Michelle: See I would think at that level if you're medicine and you're Harvard, I would think it would be like, come up with the idea, write a grant to get your funding, and then totally pursue that, and if you get a little offshoot, then I guess that's the next grant.

[00:03:26.12] Joan: Right.  Yeah, it's all about grants.  That's huge.  Yeah.  Yeah, and those have been drying up.
Michelle: Oh, I'm sure.  I'm sure.
Joan: But it is kinda interesting that I think sometimes what our idea of scientists and what happens is kind of two different things.

[00:03:52.03] Michelle: The stereotype.
Wendy: We want kids to understand the basics of how to ride a horse, and then once they know how to ride the horse, they can go out in the discipline and explore and do things the way they want.

[00:04:00.09]  Joan: Well you know now.
Wendy: (inaudible)
Joan: Well but even with the way the MSP is set up, for a while we were just stuck on the scientific method, and now we're going into field studies, we're going into observations, and that's more what the science community would say.  That it's all those things, not just that one way of doing things.

Commentary: As with the other episodes I've blogged about today, the episodes in this post were clipped from a longer discussion about the metacognition prompts that the teachers had answered the previous afternoon.  Michelle (closest to camera on right), Joan (in middle on right), and Wendy (closest to window on right) do most of the talking, and Adria (on left) joins the table toward the end of the episode but doesn't say anything.

A number of things stuck out to me about this clip:

• Michelle seems to be one of the louder, more persistent voices in the "give-us-answers" camp.  We see her referring to getting answers again here.
• She says she feels like a scientist when she is doing and analyzing experiments.  And maybe when she has 'aha' moments, although she connects this to scientific practice in what feels like an afterthought to me.  [In other words, I think if she were asked, "When (in UE2 on Wednesday) did you feel most like a scientist?," she would answer, "When we were doing an experiment."]
• Joan says that she feels like a scientist when she's thinking through something, or when she's grappling with an idea.
• Joan connects her own sense of when she feels like a scientist to what 'real scientists' do, saying it's not actually about the scientific method, it's about a lot more than that.  I get the sense that in the statement, "But it is kinda interesting that I think sometimes what our idea of scientists and what happens is kind of two different things," "our idea of scientists" ~ "the scientific method" and "what happens" ~ "more than that."
• When Wendy says, "We want kids to understand the basics of how to ride a horse...," I think she's advocating for teaching the scientific method -- it's the 'simple' version of what scientists do, and it's digestible for kids.  All that other complicated stuff is for those who have mastered the simple stuff.  

The teachers then transition into a conversation about the MSP (the Washington State tests):

Episode #2 title: UE2 120628 1038 T2 Constrained by tests

(Loose) transcript: [00:00:00.00] Joan: Well but even with the way the MSP is set up, for a while we were just stuck on the scientific method, and now we're going into field studies, we're going into observations, and that's more what the science community would say.  That it's all those things, not just that one way of doing things.

[00:00:21.07] Wendy: I think it's because of the testing, I think.
Joan: Yeah.  Yeah.
Wendy: The WASL (?) has been around, what, eight years maybe, ten?  Collect that kind of data from students...are we really heavy on inquiry, are we really heavy on content?  I think they're learning that wow, we're treating scientists or thinking science is just this.

[00:00:50.00] Joan: Yeah.
Wendy: Because of these tests.
Joan: But that's one thing...the test really has (inaudible).
Wendy: Yeah, because the teachers are saying, No we're going to be doing scientific inquiry because this is what they're going to be testing.  This is what science is and we're going to do all of these...

[00:01:06.26] Wendy: ...and in doing the professional development class I was doing, I had a lot of teachers coming up to me and saying, "How can we turn our curriculum materials into a controlled experiment?"  And I'm like, you can't.  Why would you want to?

[00:01:20.16] Joan: Yeah.
Wendy: Because that's what they test on the MSP (inaudible).  But I'm like, That's not what science is about, it's about exploring and investigating and observations and field studies and, you know, all of that.

[00:01:34.18] Joan: Yeah.
Wendy: But that's not what they're testing, so how can you teach it?
Michelle: Yeah.
Wendy: Let it go.

[00:01:41.00] Joan: But it's good now that they have included field studies and all that.  So now it isn't such a narrow vision.
Wendy: Yeah.  They're easier (?).
Joan: Yeah.

[00:01:49.03] Michelle: It is still kinda frustrating that I'm thinking back to last year.  I teach sixth graders, but last year I did a leadership class.  And it was all seventh and eighth graders.  And of course the eighth graders had taken the science WASL, and I was like, okay, so like, how was it?

[00:02:14.13] Michelle: And a bunch of 'em went, What was the answer to the car question?  And I went, Explain to me what the car question was.  And basically what the scenario is is a kid walks over.  A car has been driven and it's parked, and you lean against it.

[00:02:35.12] Michelle: And the question was, when you feel the heat, was it convection, conduction, radiation, or whatever?  You know, and I'm like.
Joan: Wow.
Michelle: That is so unfair.  I mean, if you're gonna go back to that, then give us the nice little set curriculum so we make sure there's a heat unit in there so that these kiddos are ready.  But.

[00:02:57.25] Joan: It's already in their standard, so that's, yeah.
Wendy: I bet you if you went (inaudible) to the standards, it is verbatim.
Joan: Yeah, it would be addressed in there.
Michelle: Really?

[00:03:05.26] Wendy: The questions on the sixth grade science WASL, MSP, whatever, how many stars are in the solar system?
Michelle: How many what?
Joan: Stars.
Wendy: Stars are in our solar system?

[00:03:16.07] Wendy: One, millions, or billions?
Adria: (inaudible)
Wendy: One, millions, or billions?
Joan: Those are the choices.

[00:03:24.13] Wendy: One, millions, or billions?  Kids go, this is a trick question.  I said, go have fun with it.  And it is, if you go to the standards, it's verbatim.
Joan: It's right there.
Wendy: Verbatim.  Right out of the standards.

[00:03:43.01] Joan: Yeah.
Wendy: Students should know that the sun is our only star in the solar system.
Michelle: Really?
Joan: The other thing that I think a lot of people forget is that OSPI puts out a tests and items specification.  It tells you what's gonna be on this year's test...

[00:03:58.08] Joan: ...so you know, when you look at that tests and items specification, you, you pretty well know, you know, what's going to be on that test.
Michelle: That's from the OSPI website?
Joan: Yeah.

[00:04:10.06] Michelle: And what's it under?
Joan: Test and items specifications.
Wendy: It tells you what kind of items.
Joan: Well it tells you what standards, you know, it's on there like the standards...

[00:04:19.10] Joan: ...so it lets you know, like, what they are going to be hitting.  So like, it had on there something about plants, which is part of the standards, too, but it's, some of those standards are like in the first and second grade standard band.
Wendy: It's not just fifth grade.

[00:04:41.27] Joan: Not just fifth, so it helps you, gives you (inaudible) knowing what.  So in the library, I make sure that I create lessons around what I see in the tests and items specifications.  They may not be asked verbatim, but.
Michelle: What the, what concepts will be.

[00:05:06.15] Joan: Yeah, what's gonna be tested.
Wendy: Just in order to make sure you cover all the content, and making sure the kids have heard it, right?  Not experience it, not learn it, not drill it, not whatever.  But even just heard it.  One of our teachers went down and made flashcards of questions of all the fifth grade standards...

[00:05:22.07] Wendy: Like the one (inaudible).
Joan: Yeah.
Wendy: Just did some multiple choice, just did some fill in short answer, you know, what (inaudible) you could ask.  And they were just flash cards that we did, you know, two or three questions and we talked about them in the morning real quick.

[00:05:35.09] Wendy: And just discussed em, just so kids, even if one kid remembered them, at least we'd gone through all of (inaudible).  It's certainly not the way we should teach science, but.
Michelle: You gotta cover your bases, too!
Wendy: Yeah, and then a question like that one doesn't come up and then...


Commentary:  This episode (#2) immediately follows Episode #1, in which the teachers (or perhaps just Joan) expressed what I consider to be relatively sophisticated views of the nature of science: she articulates that science is more than the scientific method.  She goes on to say that she's empowered to teach this way of thinking about science to her kids, now that the MSP 'allows' for it.

Even though I'm encouraged by Joan's sophisticated ideas and by the MSP broadening its view of the nature of science, I'm discouraged by the test-driven constraints that I sense (in particular) are felt deeply by Wendy and Michelle.  I'm struck by Wendy's statement: "Not experience it, not learn it, not drill it, not whatever...It's certainly not the way we should teach science, but..."  All this talk about the MSP, closely following the teachers talking about their views on the nature of science, reinforces my conviction that state standards and tests and all kinds of other systemic things disempower teachers.  And I wonder whether these systemic things constrain the kinds of learning that can happen in PD courses -- or at least the kinds of learning that teachers think is relevant to their classroom practice.  If it's not in the standards -- or if it's not what's tested -- does it have no meaning, pragmatically?

UE2: It's empowering to disagree.

Episode title: UE2 120628 1037 T7 Empowering process of disagreeing

(Loose) transcript: [00:00:00.00] Sherry: So I have nature of science.  I'm doing this A, B, C.  (Laughter)
Tim: You know, I was going to until I read B yesterday, and I was like, I think I'm going to skip that.
(Lots of talking about how they decided which prompt to answer.)
Tim: Maybe I'll do that Monday.

[00:00:13.28] Sherry: I kind of jumped around.  I jumped.
Tim: So what did you, what did you?
Sherry: Did you ever feel that you were being led to come to a specific, that was the hard one.  I thought, should I be honest or should I not?  And so, I don't mind being a little controversial.

[00:00:27.19] Eleanor: You should be honest!
Sherry: Yeah, right, but should I tackle it?  I mean.  Yeah, so, I thought some tried to lead coming to a specific answer, just because we all, like we're all 13 people right people, and so we wanted to, but if that's.  What happened is I found the strength in myself, and I said we, to think for ourself.  And to push back when we didn't agree, or we just wanted more clarification, and it worked.

[00:00:55.16] Sherry: I mean, I'm not a shy person.  It's not like I'm afraid to do that.  But I noticed that when I did, it was met with respect.  And then it was considered.  You know.  That's empowering to me.
Tim: Yeah.
Sherry: To be somewhere where, "I don't quite agree with you," and then they listen, and then they'll either push back, but not.  There are sometimes when, you know, when you, they gotta be right at all costs.

[00:01:22.03] Tim: Right.
Sherry: Whether they are even considering whether they're wrong, they just won't back.  And I didn't feel that.  That was so important to me.
Tim: Yeah, in a lot of the Seattle science units, it's safe and perfectly acceptable to say, "We have inconclusive results.  We do not have an answer."

[00:01:37.19] Sherry: But I mean even as us as teacher adults, I got that back.  I got that respect back.
Tim: Very cool.
Sherry: It was!  It was.  So I'm glad I answered that question.
Eleanor: It feels really good to be heard, doesn't it?

[00:01:52.28] Sherry: It was, and it must be a thing with me because I say it a lot, and I'll go right away.  I'll just turn around and walk away if I'm with a group that I don't feel that.  (Laughter)  And if somebody in the group doesn't give it or tromps on someone, I'll say, "Wait, wait, wait.  Let 'em speak."  It's huge with me and it's just now I'm realizing it, you know.
Tim: Let me test this theory.
Sherry: Oh, shut up.  You would!  Okay, now I'm leaving.
Eleanor: New table!

[00:02:23.24] Sherry: I just, you know, how people treat each other is so important to me.

Commentary: Thursday morning in UE2, the teachers began by discussing their answers to the metacognition prompts, as I described in an earlier post.  Tim (green checked shirt), Sherry (peach shirt), and Gayle (hoodie) are featured on camera.  Gayle and Tim have just shared their answers to the "instruction" prompts, and the episode begins when Sherry offers her answer to the "nature of science" prompts.

I feel like what Sherry is saying is that she can't learn when she doesn't feel respected or when she doesn't feel she can disagree.  I empathize with this, and I'm excited that she feels that UE2 is a place that she can learn.

I've been surprised and impressed by Sherry's regular, in-the-moment assessment of her growth -- she often says things like, "I've never thought of this before, but right now I'm thinking...and it's so cool!"  Because I don't know her in other contexts, I can't tell if this course is particularly empowering to her or if she's just the kind of gal that seeks out and appreciates learning activities no matter where she's at.  Regardless, it sounds like UE2 feels like a safe space to her.  Pleased to hear it.

And take a look at this screen shot of Tim and Sherry toward the end of the episode.  Doesn't it just make you smile?