Alex Congress Presentation

A quick rundown of my history at the University of Illinois and the University of Texas.  Except for teaching experience, my background is fairly far removed from PER but I am trying to transition into PER now that my PhD is wrapped up.

The first clip, which I blogged about here, shows teachers co-creating the idea that energy is shared between the magnet and the ball bearing.  This clip appealed to me because of the general productivity of the interaction and the way the teachers each built off each other's ideas.   This clip could be viewed in terms of the teachers' epistemology and how they frame their current activity and interaction, in terms of the cognitive resources the teachers bring to the discussion, and in terms of the teachers' use of tools and gestures to communicate and to aid their group cognition.

I shared some things I noticed while watching the clip.  Some observations from other I-RISEer's:

• Is this form of "argumentation" always productive or are there times you need more explicit rejection of incorrect ideas?
• The importance of differentiating between attacking an idea and attacking the person who proposed the idea
• Teachers are doing more than just referencing each other's ideas, they are engaging with them - playing them out to see where they lead.
• The teachers start with observations and then transition to sense-making, this pattern repeats as Sid shares her observation about magnet strength.
• The amount of hedging versus ownership of ideas might be related to how comfortable each teacher feels in that group (note: Sid and Julie have known each other for a long time).

The second clip starts immediately after the first clip as Lane shifts the teachers' attention to the third question on the worksheet that accompanies the Gaussian Gun activity.

I wanted to contrast the great interaction and "discussion" framing in Clip #1 with the reduced interaction and "worksheet" framing in Clip #2 (at least until Lane gets up).  Both video clips start with the teachers attempting to answer a question from the worksheet.  In the first clip the worksheet question prompts a very productive interaction while in the second clip the worksheet question prompts a much less desirable interaction.  My claim is that this is due to the wording of the questions.  The language of first question (energy gains and losses for the ball and the magnet) matches the language the teachers were already prepared to use to discuss the Gaussian Gun - it matches language the teachers had already developed during the first week of the workshop.  The language of the second question (energy associated with the interaction) does not match the language the teachers had already developed (energy shared between the ball and the magnet).  While Lane recognizes "shared energy" and "energy in the interaction" as very similar ideas the difference in language causes the ideas to feel disjoint to the teachers.  When Lane directs the teachers to the worksheet question, the shift in language causes the teachers to shift their framing and hence their interaction.  At least until Lane gets up and Mary returns to the "shares it" language.

Some observations from the I-RISE team:

• Lane cuts Mary off in his excitement to offer them the "interaction" language to describe their idea.  This interruption likely contributes to the shift in the group dynamics.
• If the instructor's goal was to get the teachers to say a specific word or answer a specific question then this could feel like a very productive interaction.
• The second video starts with everyone agreeing "associated with the interaction".  Even if the teachers aren't sure exactly what this means they have already agreed on an answer.  There is little opportunity to co-create knowledge once everyone agrees on an answer.

Overall it's been a great experience and a great two and a half weeks.  I want to keep looking at this video and thinking about the effects of language and framing and group dynamics.  I also want to keep thinking about energy forms (specifically, when is energy thermal vs. sound vs. kinetic) and also whiteboard use (specifically, when and how is the whiteboard used a shared tool that everyone interacts with to aid the group cognition).