I-RISE Congress - Brad

Last and Least!  Here we go!  I apologize for not posting sooner.  I arrived home from Seattle at 1am and by 8am I was attending faculty meetings to prepare for the new semester.  As October winds down, I feel like I may finally have caught up enough in life to post on here.

Here it is.  My Congress submission.  I focused on FORMS of energy (I think).  A little about me first.

With historical footnotes aside, here is my gig at the University of New England.

In the College Physics I and II classes, we spend a few weeks considering energy.  At UNE, we have focused on energy pies.  While the conversation begins with a general consideration of five forms of energy (kinetic, gravitational, elastic, thermal, and chemical), we tend to have the aim of getting to conservation of energy calculations.  The simple Ek=Eg, find the velocity of the ball if it falls from 10m, kind of problem.  I'm beginning to lose interest in that and I am more interested in developing energy diagrams as a tool for "thinking about physics scenarios" rather than necessarily computing  boring, non-very-real scenarios.  Here are some of my research interests.

I found myself quite interested in three particular scenarios from Energy I: 1) lowering and lifting a bowling bowl, 2) the melting bird bath, and 3) the Gaussian Gun.  In the first one, my interest is the conversation the teachers had about chemical energy, the use of ATP, and perceived differences between lifting and lowering a ball.

Note, I give the name of the video on the setup powerpoint slides.  If you want to watch a subtitled version of any of the following videos, you can find them in the E1 movie folder on the SPU server.

Thermal and chemical energy are both challenging entities to consider, and I appreciate the conversation this group is having as they try to flesh out the different components.  I particularly enjoy to see when students/teachers/anyone hit a wall with a particular model or diagram and they need to evolve beyond it.  Here, this group found that by confining themselves to 8 energy units for both of their pictures, they were unable to effectively compare the two scenarios.  When a model fails, and the creators catch on to what isn't working, I think that is when true deciphering happens.

The second example is the bird bath.  This one gets into the sticky situation of dis-entangling thermal and kinetic energy...or possibly realizing that they are one and the same at a certain level.

As I mentioned on my powerpoint slide, this one gets exciting when folks start to catch onto Krista's idea about a convection current.  Maybe this is severely over-complicating the scenario.  Why add in that next level of complexity when the previous levels have not been fully understood.  Yet...what a fascinating insight.  This is totally something to come back to and dig into further.  Maybe this could lead into finding some new, rich energy examples, one's that look at heat transfer and "motion of energy" in an environment that isn't so linear.  I see a lot of potential here.

Lastly, the Gaussian Gun.  First off, it's cool.  I can't help but get excited about it.  But honestly, the most captivating part for me was the lead in to discussing exothermic and endothermic reactions.  Particularly, the exo- examples of combustion and respiration.

In this video, Emma and John particularly are trying to grapple with a physical picture of what is happening with gun / combustion example.  Emma has many questions, and John tries to answer them, although he admits that he's simple trying to figure it out himself as he talks.  Lots of noises and hand gestures here.  In hindsight, I'm less interested in this video that I was when I first started studying it.  The first two I posted on here might be richer.

Finally, wrapping up:

The program afforded me a wonderful opportunity to try something new and to meet a lot of fantastic people.  I'm also thinking much more about "what is the best way to teach energy."  A week ago, I finished the first energy unit in my General Physics I class.  I completed it the same way I did the previous few years.  But in another two weeks, I am revisiting energy.  At that point, I intend to utilize all three examples from my Congress interests.  I am most excited about the Gaussian Gun, but I think all three have the possibility to be long and fruitful discussions in class.  I'll give each of these problems to my groups of 3 that I have in my combined lab/lecture environment.  I don't think I'll do energy theater this year, but possibly energy cubes and the diagrammatic tool Rachel and Abby reported on in a recent paper.  I also want to have my class look at a few of the different energy metaphors, just so they can acknowledge that there are different ways of talking about and diagramming energy, and each has strengths and weaknesses.

If you made it all the way through, thanks for reading!

Namaste,
Brad

I-RISE Congress

Hi All,

This is my presentation from my I-RISE Congress from the Summer of 2013.

A little about me: I was a military brat, but only lived in a hand full of states.

I attended 17 different schools K-12th grade. I attended the same high school 3 different times!

My Educational Background

My I-RISE Congress Topic

Respiration is Degrading

View my Prezi here

This clip is from a whole-group conversation. It is preceded by Steve asking "Is there any other kind of degraded energy besides heat?" The clip begins with Madonna mid-sentence; her complete sentence is, "Madonna: In respiration, the energy contained in the CO2 bonds and your water at the end are not necessarily useful."

Madonna is positing the chemical energy of CO2 and water (the products of respiration) as "degraded energy".

I found support for Madonna's idea in Campbell:

The products store less free energy per mole than the reactants; that fits our colloquial definition of "degraded"=not useful.

It also fits with Rachel's idea of degraded=less of a gradient, I think--because the products store less free energy, there is less of a gradient between them and the products of any future metabolic reaction that might involve them. Glucose is non-degraded--and useful--because there is a big difference in free energy between it and the products of respiration, a metabolic reaction that the cell can carry out. The cell CANNOT carry out a reaction with a similar release of free energy from CO2. But if it could...then the chemical energy in CO2 would be useful.

I got this idea from Campbell, that debunks the biologist's shorthand that "energy is stored in bonds". "It is important to realize that the breaking of bonds does not release energy," as biology teachers, yours truly included, often tell their students. The "stored energy" we refer to, says Campbell, is actually "potential energy that can be released when new bonds are formed after the original bonds break, as long as the products are of lower free energy than the reactants."

 There are a few things I find curious about this explanation:

If the energy "can be released", then why is it not appropriate to call it stored?

With the phrase "potential energy that can be released when new bonds are formed", is Campbell reiterating the potential energy=possible energy misconception?

Can I help myself here by renaming potential energy as gradient energy or difference energy? In that case, the potential energy is not in the reactants, but between the reactants and products. This jives with something I already know about gravitational potential energy, which is that the amount you have is relative to where the "bottom" is.


[00:00:00.00](Steve: Is there any other kind of degraded energy besides heat?
Madonna: In respiration, the energy contained in the CO2 bonds...)
 and your water at the end are not necessarily useful
[00:00:05.10]they're degraded to you, they weren't utilized
[00:00:08.04]you're using your ATP to do work for your body
[00:00:12.23]but the CO2 and the water that is given off
Debra: They're lost.
[00:00:18.00]I don't know--is that degraded energy?
[00:00:21.20]There's still energy in the chemical bonds...
[00:00:28.18]And the same thing with a battery.
[00:00:30.04]In a battery you have movement of those electrons due to a difference in electrical potential or reduction potential
[00:00:41.06]but it's degraded once...
Debra: Well it's the concentration difference that drives it

[00:00:49.01]Madonna: In a copper battery, once that copper has received its electrons and becomes a solid, it's no longer...

[00:00:57.29]Steve: So those are degraded matter. I'm trying to think...
[00:01:00.21]if you've got the carbon dioxide when you're done
[00:01:04.25]it's had the transfer of energy by breaking its bonds
[00:01:12.11]no, reforming more stable, tighter bonds
[00:01:15.10]so they've given up that energy
[00:01:18.07]so now you've got a matter leftover

[00:01:21.14]Madonna: that contains energy

[00:01:24.01]Steve: But does it?
Madonna: Yeah! The carbon to oxygen bonds have energy

[00:01:30.07]Steve: But it bonds at a lower energy than it started
[00:01:33.21](Don makes a "downhill" gesture) It's been degraded.
[00:01:36.12]It's a much lower potential

[00:01:41.01]Brad: The energy density in sugar is higher
than the energy concentration in CO2 and water

[00:01:48.15]Debra: So then it IS coming down a gradient

[00:01:54.10]Madonna: it would be waste energy that you're putting off

I-RISE congress 2013 - Jesper Haglund

Below, I share some of the slides I presented at the I-RISE congress and some reflections along the way.

I am a postdoctor in Science Education at Linköping University, Sweden. Dring my stay in Seattle, I was asked about geography and climate, so I started off with some comparisons:

These overlays comparing the latitudes of Europe and North America show how far to the north Sweden (and also Poland) are located. We thank the Gulf Stream for making our countries habitable.

 

I have experience of recording and analysing video data from my previous research, but never in the organized form that has been developed within I-RISE. While I-RISE records what happens throughout entire courses, I have previously been involved in short interventions only.

There are many commonalities between the lines of research being done within the Energy Project at SPU and in our group at Linköping University. From a science content perspective, we have a shared interest in thermpdynamics, and in particular in concepts relating to its second law, i.e. efficiency and energy degradation. We have also both analysed language in science and science education from the perspective of conceptual metaphor. What I learned most about being an I-RISE scholar, however, was to get to know about the structured approach to qualitative research, involving taking and sharing field notes and making blog posts, so that episodes that had caught one person's attention quickly could be discussed within the group.

 

 

In all, I found my time as an I-RISE scholar a very rewarding experience. Apart from getting to know about the professional development at SPU and the research on its outcome, it provided good opportunities to build networks within the PER community.

 

In addition, I think that the way conceptual metaphor was introduced in E2 and how the participants came to approach the matter holds an interesting story that may be the embryo of a manuscript. In previous research, it has been shown that conceptual metaphor is prevalent in language in scientific discourse and science textbook. However, we have struggled to establish eduactional implications of such analysis. Reactions reviewers and at conferences have sometimes been of the type:

 

“OK, you have found that science language is full of metaphorical language. So what? How can I as a science education researcher or teacher use that?”

 

I think that we have gathered data in E2 which can help us respond to such reactions in two ways:

• Science teachers find the idea of looking for metaphorical aspects in students’ language intriguing and worthwhile. It may help them analyse the students' thoughts and respond to them.
• After a brief introduction to conceptual metaphor, some science teachers independently reach the conclusion that we cannot talk about energy without recourse to metaphor (as has been argued in general about language overall by Lakoff & Johnson).

To the best of my knowledge, these arguments have not been put forward before, and may provide a basis for research collaborations in analysing the participants' dialogue and a useful manuscript pitch.



Using ET as a reconciliation tool... (Afternoon ET 08-09 saga - part 3)

This is the third (and probably last) video from the Lowering ball saga.

Right before this episode, Barbara was explaining her reasoning on how is the energy story while lowering the bowling ball at a constant speed. Her story focuses on the ball having lots of potential gravitational energy at the beginning, and as it is lowered it loses potential energy, which is transformed into kinetic (since it is moving). Since they are working to define the ET they will represent for this scenario, some of the group members let her know that they can not lose energy (since it is conserved), nor can add extra kinetic energy (since it is constant speed). Since the discussion was not leading to a change, they decide to explore Barbara's idea while acting her ET.

**Warning: this video contains some noise in the audio. 

It is 3+ minutes, but I think it has a lot of things to discuss about - meaning: it is worth it!**

[00:00:01.08] Trevor: So if I am potential and somebody is kinetic and we are moving in the air, so this is the beginning right? 

[00:00:08.10] Barbara: Are you the ball or...

[00:00:09.03] Trevor: This (the rope) is the ball, and we are going to ignore everything else just focus on this. As the ball moves down more I have to do something (noise)

[00:00:21.20] Barbara: You changed to kinetic.

[00:00:22.69] Trevor: OK, now don't we have more kinetic energy than we started with?

[00:00:27.28] Krista: So we will be going faster like () it will be dropping faster?

[00:00:30.27] Trevor: We have to be going faster

[00:00:31.26] Barbara: Well you need, the guy is... No because the guy is putting resistance.

[00:00:38.16] Krista: So then we have to include the man our-

[00:00:40.24] Barbara: You use less pot- No, you use less potential and that became kinetic and, and it still can fall so-

[00:00:44.74] Trevor: But where do I (potential) go?

[00:00:49.00] Barbara: To kinetic, and you ended up staying there (the ball).

[00:00:51.26] Krista: But now we have () kinetic energy, because now we are both kinetic.

[00:00:55.11] Barbara: No, they were both potential and they both went to kinetic, that's (Trevor: No) what I am saying.

[00:00:59.20] Krista: So, I think we need more people.

[00:01:01.21] Barbara: Ok, so you have one kinetic, two potential and you all three are potential. No! You need more of your because the three of you- you need five, four.

[00:01:09.22] Krista: Hypothetically, go ahead. Walk us here.

[00:01:12.21] Barbara: Four potential, before it starts lowering. But one- When it's moving say one kinetic, three potential

Trevor: Ok

Krista: Ok, so what happens when 

[00:01:23.04] Barbara: And then one other changes to kinetic. And it still moves past the waist.

[00:01:30.03] Trevor: Are we still moving faster 'cause we have two kinetics, and we started with one?

[00:01:35.05] Barbara: Maybe one can go to thermal.

[00:01:36.19] Trevor: So you think thermal's in the ball?

[00:01:40.28] Barbara: Thermal in the- I don't know where, not in the ball. () in the air...

[00:01:43.02] Krista: Where do I (kinetic) go?

[00:01:44.06] Barbara: Maybe call it in the air. Some kinetic in here (the ball), thermal and kinetic in here. Very simplified.

[00:01:56.22] Barbara: (Maggie is transferred and transform into thermal in the arm) No! We need potential in here (the ball).

**Different voices at the same time**

[00:02:06.29] Emma: So far in the examples we've seen, this is the problem I am having. When we have some kinetic energy and some thermal energy exiting to the air from an object that's usually a really small portion of the energy. And so I am really hesitant to say that of all the potential energy in the ball- 

[00:02:25.17] Barbara: But it still moving when it is here, so you can have kinetic energy in the ball.

[00:02:29.10] Emma: But you can't have more than you started with because the ball speed is constant. So you can't gain kinetic energy, which means you have to be given energy.

[00:02:34.10] Barbara: Well, so what _you_ guys want to do. 

[00:02:39.15] Trevor: I think we need to put these people who are changing from potential to something else have to go into the arm. Because if you ima-

[00:02:46.00] Barbara: Not from the ball.

[00:02:48.22] Trevor: From the ball (Other voices: from the ball).

[00:02:51.24] Krista: Maybe is not a direct path like that kinetic- No, potential. Go ahead.

[00:02:56.07] Barbara: Would you say it again, what you-?

[00:02:57.09] Trevor: So I am saying potential, from the ball, has to go into the arm and I think it's thermal, because the arm doesn't get going faster either.

Emma: Yeah.

[00:03:07.16] Barbara: So the potential from the ball goes into the arm.

[00:03:09.27] Krista: I mean through a chemical process is heating up the arm, not directly-

[00:03:14.28] Trevor: I think it's kind of directly

[00:03:16.26] Krista: I mean, but it is a direct reaction to what is happening (Barbara: the ATP). So it's causing the arm to heat up.

[00:03:24.11] Barbara: And whenever ATP (is hydrolyzed?), it changes the shape of the molecule. That's how the body gets work done. 

[00:03:33.14] Barbara: But you know what, I want to see what- You guys play yours now.

I presented this video in the I-RISE Congress, and basically I could use this video for 10 different purposes. But what I (personally) am more interested of, is how they decide to use the ET as a tool of conciliation with Barbara. Instead of remain in a discussion trying to persuade her (we consider Barbara and the group initially were talking of different things), they decided to understand where is she coming from, and then question her in the blank spot that she has not addressed. I consider this group dynamic shows responsiveness and I can almost see how with the ET performance I can observe the accommodation and assimilation process of Barbara (magic to my eyes). And I simply love how Barbara, after all the questioning they made to her model, the modifications she decide to include, and the addition of new elements, at the end she stills recognize that ET as her own.

Some other issues that we discussed with this episode is how they see thermal energy as the answer to conserve the energy in the system, but they have problems trying to explain where should it go, or why it happens.
ATP shows up again, if it weren't because of KD explanation, I wouldn't be aware of it (long time since I had bio classes). Now I realized that it is a thing while trying to explain the scenarios during E1 and E2, but I could not say if this is a sign that the instruction of the PD should address or if they prefer to simply mention it with no further details (those two positions has been brought up in more than one occasion).
We also noticed the implication of representing kinetic energy as the people jogging. Rachel said she doesn't like it because it allows to mix the substance and level energy ontology. In my personal opinion, I liked it because I was able to see she sometimes tried to mixed both ontology, but she also notices it and go back to her regular pace.

This is the end of the Saga. I share the other links if you are interested in more details, or simply get more information of what happened before.
Conceptual understanding vs Equations (Afternoon ET 08-09 saga - part 1)
Forces vs Energy... (Afternoon ET 08-09 saga - part 2)
I-RISE Congress - Lowering at a constant speed

I-RISE Congress - Lowering at a constant speed

Thank you again for such a great experience! I am sharing the slides of the congress presentation.

I am the first I-RISE Scholar coming from México. I show you where I am exactly from.

During High School, in a aptitudinal test they told me I had good aptitudes to go for a exact science carreer or for humanities. In my mind that didn't make sense, how can you mix them both? I decided to study a B.Sc. in Physics Engineering. A couple years after, I discovered there was a PER group in my University and decided to join them. It was in that moment that I realized that there was a way to mix both of my strengths, since then I decided PER is was I would do.

Basically, I started doing my fists steps in PER as an undergrad. Then I decided to go for a Ph.D. in PER, continuing working with Genaro Zavala, now as my adviser. Two summers ago Rachel went to my university for a summer workshop about video analysis. In that moment I decided that was what I wanted to do. I arrived to Seattle on April for a six month research visit to develop my qualitative research skills (my PER group do not use video analysis that much).

Due to time limitations, I could not analyze both days as I planned originally. I wanted to see what were the differences that made one day more productive than the other. Instead I decided to study in detail the second day (more productive than the first). As a clarification, E1 has already worked in ET in previous days, but not during afternoon. So it was the first time I observed them doing ET alive, but not their first time doing ET.

I share the video here, but for more detail please check the post: Forces vs Energy... (Afternoon ET 08-09 saga - part 2)

**Warning: There is wind noise in the audio**

I share the video here, but for more detail please check the post: Using ET as a reconciliation tool... (Afternoon ET 08-09 saga - part 3)

**Warning: there is also some noise in this one**

As conclusion, thank you for helping me developing my qualitative research skills. I really appreciate having a space where people get engage in this kind of discussions and gives you productive feedback to improve your opportunity areas.I am really wishing I have the opportunity to keep working with this two ET, because I felt I needed more time to finish the analysis.

Forces vs Energy... (Afternoon ET 08-09 saga - part 2)

This is the second video from my E1 Afternoon ET 08-09 saga. The group is making agreements on how to make the ET for a bowling ball being lowered at a constant speed. This video is tightly related to the first part of the saga Conceptual understanding vs Equations (Afternoon ET 08-09 saga - part 1).

During E1 they have been talking about forces for more than one day. In this video we observe Cindy making an analogy to try to understand how to represent the opposition exerted by the hand while lowering the ball at a constant speed.

[00:00:00.00] Cindy: If I am pushing against her, all right?
So, I am pushing against her and, but you- you're, you are resisting to the point- You are resisting to the point that I can't move you.
[00:00:10.24] Cindy: Amm, is this kinetic energy?
{different voices from the group saying no}
Trevor: There's no movement
Rob: Weren't you saying (to Barbara), weren't you talking about-
Cindy: () is not moving.
Barbara: So, can I ask a question?
[00:00:17.28] Cindy: So, I am lowering a bowling ball gradually (gestures of the ball being hold by something)
Maggie: -at a constant
Cindy: -at a constant... Do I have an opposite kinetic energy -I am, I am just trying to throw this out there.
[00:00:31.14] Cindy: I don't know what's correct and what is incorrect but, could part of that chemical energy be converted into kinetic energy as well in -in the arm system?
[00:00:44.04] Rob: I was trying - I was having a hard time of exp- verbalizing that, you know? Exactly what you are saying with you resisting so the energy -kinetic energy is going downward and you are pushing back with a _force_ in the opposite direction. But the force is not the same as energy
[00:00:59.19] {different voices of the group agreeing}
Rob: And I... So the energy lose, I am not- So, you know? There is no kinetic (noise) slowing down the kinetic energy. (noise) in the opposite direction.

 Rob mentions he had problems trying to verbalize that, he might refer to the discussion presented on the first part of the saga. In this episode we observe how they realize forces and energy are different, they consider that when a force is applied in the scenario they should represent it somehow in terms of energy. They constantly talk that they are different, but still can't explain the energy story involved in the scenario given with certainty.
[Next episode of the saga: Using ET as a reconciliation tool... (Afternoon ET 08-09 saga - part 3)]

Stirling engine ET representing energy density

In E2, 130815, Thursday AM, the teachers were asked to enact a Stirling engine in an energy theater. They had been shown the engine the previous morning and started sketching energy diagrams, but had not carried out an ET.

The engine consists of gas contained in a cylinder,separated into two compartments by a styrofoam wall. If you heat the gas in one of the compartments with a hot cup of coffee, it will expand, which moves the separating wall. The wall, in turn, is conncted to a balanced wheel with a rod, so that the wheel starts to rotate when the wall moves. Finally, the wheel is connected to a piston, which compresses the gas in the compartment that was not heated, so that the styrofoam wall returns to its starting position. This closes the cycle of the engine.

I attach the entire ET (25 minutes, three clips), since I think it gives much insight into how the groups gradually developed the idea of representing "energy density" in the form of participants' distance from each other within a particular object. The closer they are to each other, the higher the energy density. This can be compared to another representation, posted by Abby in 2011 (http://scherrenergyproject.blogspot.com/2011/08/shrinking-people-to-represent.html) of people "shrinking" vs. speading their arms, indicating the same amount of energy, but more or less useful to do work.

They enact the entire process in three steps: First, the cylinder starts go get heated, so that the engine starts to move. Then, there is the steady-state operation, where thermal energy goes to surrounding air, driven by a gradient in temperature and different thermal density at the heat source vs. heat sink. Finally, when the coffee has reached room temperature, the engine will stop and thermal energy will be evenly distributed.

 

The notion of "energy density" is found useful by the entire class, including the instructors, and this ET pair of groups is later asked to enact their ET in full class. Energy density contributes to understanding the difference in usefulness of a certain amount of energy in different circumstances.

Another thing to note: Gail is checked out most of the time.

Group 3's energy diagram:

A synthesised energy diagram, when the engine is driven by a temperature gradient between the atmosphere and a pack of ice, based on those of all groups:

Energy is money analogy

In E2, 130815, Thursday AM, they made extensive use of analogies between energy and money, when dealing with loss/waste vs. usefulness. It is different if there are 4 people with $100 each vs. 1 million people with one dollar each, with examples when the rich and poor get to interact.

Leslie came up with this idea: "It's not how lucky I am, it's where I live." In other words, what you can do with a certain amount and form of energy depends on the energy inthe surroundings.

Sture Nordholm has thought more of how to map thermodynamics to money in education:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ed074p273.

I like this analogy by Paul Atkins http://www.google.com/books?hl=sv&lr=&id=kJyXzvkXWBAC&oi=fnd&pg=PT2&dq=atkins+galileo%27s+finger&ots=Z_5l1WXMZZ&sig=Ukrtm9TUcfrbpde8uY7YbgGEeKo:
"The analogy I like to use to show the connection [between the interpretations of entropy in macroscopic thermodynamics and statistical mechanics] is that of sneezing in a busy street or in a quiet library. A sneeze is like a disorderly input of energy, very much like energy transferred as heat. It should be easy to accept that the bigger the sneeze, the greater the disorder introduced in the street or in the library. That is the fundamental reason why the ‘energy supplied as heat’ appears in the numerator of Clausius’s expression, for the greater the energy supplied as heat, the greater the increase in disorder and therefore the greater the increase in entropy. The presence of the temperature in the denominator fits with this analogy too, with its implication that for a given supply of heat, the entropy increases more if the temperature is low than if it is high. A cool object, in which there is little thermal motion, corresponds to a quiet library. A sudden sneeze will introduce a lot of disturbance, corresponding to a big rise in entropy. A hot object, in which there is a lot of thermal motion already present, corresponds to a busy street. Now a sneeze of the same size as in the library has relatively little effect, and the increase in entropy is small."

Trevor as a Case of Negotiating Science Identity

The E1 I-RISE crew has poked fun at Kara and me for our mild obsession with Trevor.  What fascinates me about Trevor is that, throughout E1, he stably positioned himself as a physics expert.  He rarely expressed interest in the thoughts of his peers or asks for help; he regularly asserted himself as an authority, explaining things to his peers or to the class; and he regularly spent breaks (or class time) talking one-on-one with Lane or Adam.  It would be fascinating to connect Trevor episodes to the literature on identity as a rich, extended case study.

I spent yesterday and today pulling a few episodes to illustrate some of Trevor's antics.  I'm not going to put these in order; instead, I'm going to organize them thematically.

These first three episodes illustrate Trevor explaining something to his peers or to the class.  I think this deserves a much more careful analysis, but, briefly, I see Trevor positioning himself as an expert by:

• Using technical (sometimes quantitative) language (e.g., compression, tension) and referring to well-known figures in the scientific community (e.g., Richard Feynman)
• Asserting his role as teacher-expert by moving to the center of the room when his talking, proposing a 'fun' experiment his peers can do at home, offering his solution without bidding to Cynthia, asking leading questions to his tablemates, etc.

I'd love to know if you see other bids that Trevor makes to be recognized as an expert in the videos below.

Trevor explaining to the class

Lane: What do folks think is happening at the micro level with the meter stick?
Trevor: I know from engineering with bending, you have compression on the, the bent side, and you have the tension on the other side, so, so, you know, if you think about the molecules...
(Lane hands Trevor the meter stick, and Trevor rolls into middle of room.)
Trevor: ...on the bent side here, they have to be closer together (pause).  Because you're reducing the distance between them.  And the ones on this side have to be farther apart.  So you're sort of stretching both.  You're compressing this, and you're expanding this and both kind of want to go back, but I don't know why they want to go back. [Shrugs shoulders]
Cynthia (?): I think it's that they have been pushed opposite and so they have the potential to actually move.
Sara (?): [...] shared electrons, so they're, I mean, the meter stick is all made of wood so it's mostly carbon, so they've shared so many electrons with things around them that if you pull them apart from each other on the far side of the meter stick, they should want to go back to where their electrons are.
Trevor: Cause they're like magnetic, radio (wiggles fingers), you know, yeah.
In the background: Yeah.
Rob: The inter-molecular attractions.
Trevor: Attractions.
Rob: Too much electron sharing then you'll have combustion.  So we're not going to go there, but the inter-molecular attraction between the complex carbon molecules, organic molecules.
Trevor: So then why with clay, I don't know.
Sara (?): Because clay is not made up of carbon, so it's bonded differently.  So it's got less bonds [...]?
Margaret: Yeah, it's just [PZs?].
Rob: Less forces.
Trevor: Forces.
Sara (?): So it's got less inter-molecular attraction.  So.
Trevor: I don't know.
[Teachers talking in the background.]
Rob: Or it could have more.
Sara (?): It's got different.
Trevor: You know, we made bridges out of spaghetti, and spaghetti's [...] tension when it's not cooked, but under compression, it (snaps) like that.  And so when you try and bend it, you try and bend a piece of uncooked spaghetti, it snaps. (Lane takes meter stick back.) But if you pull equally on the ends, you, it'll hold up lots and lots of weight.
(Sara says something I can't hear.
Trevor rolls back to place.)
Trevor: [...] Property, it holds up under tension but not compression, so if you try and bend it, by compression, it snaps, right?
Lane: And that suggests to me is the difference, the molecular difference between something that wants to spring back and something that doesn't want to spring back, it must be pretty complex.  Because if cooking spaghetti changes it from, you know, from wanting to spring back to not wanting to spring back, then that tells me that I would at least have to understand what cooking spaghetti, what the molecular, you know, of cooking spaghetti is.
(Someone says something in background that I can't hear.)
Lane: Well, that's one way to do it, right.
Trevor: And I'll just throw out for, a fun experiment for you guys to make a mess in your kitchens.  When you break a piece of spaghetti, it almost always breaks into three pieces, never two.  Richard Feynman used to sit around and just break spaghetti with his frinds and like talk about why that is.  And it's very complicated to understand why that happened, but standard spaghetti, you know, just start snapping, always breaks into three.

Trevor explaining to Cynthia

Trevor: See, this is what I was trying to do.
Barbara: Call it 1, 2, 3, or A, B, C.
Trevor: That's what I was trying to do last [...].  Last time I was trying to put numbers on it.  Allright. (Barbara and Maggie are talking in the background.)
Cynthia: Because assigning numerical value becomes more confusing.
Trevor: It just helps me.
Cynthia: I, I agree.
Trevor: Well, like, so, like, if there is 1 J of kinetic energy and 10 J of magnetic energy on this ball, okay?
Cynthia: Right.
Trevor: Well, this one is going to have less magnetic energy cause it's almost to zero.  I'm gonna call this one zero.
Cynthia: Right.
Trevor: But it's gonna have almost the same amount because it really loses the most when it gets in here, right?
Cynthia: Mmhm.
Trevor: This is where the magnet really affects it.  So I said 9 J.  So this is the situation at the beginning.
Cynthia: Mmhm.
Trevor: So using that as a model, both, since this is touching these at zero, both of these are touching, these are both zero, right?
Cynthia: And then.
Trevor: And then this is out here at the 10 J mark.  Well then how many J do I have left?  I have 19, 20 total J here.
Cynthia: Right.
Trevor: And I only have 10 here.  So that must mean that this must have 10 J worth of kinetic energy.  Which is 10 times more kinetic energy than I had before.  So that's why it goes faster.
Cynthia: Right.
Trevor: In my head.
Cynthia: Yeah.  I mean, that does make sense.
Trevor: I think it makes sense to throw numbers in there sometimes.
Cynthia: Well, unless you throw numbers it's kind of this magical thing that's happening that you can't evaluate.
Trevor: And it's so hard to track which is increasing and by how much and all that stuff without numbers.
Cynthia: Right, and I think the key here is that zero value, and then you have to account for what was here to begin with and...
Trevor: Zero makes it a lot easier.
Cynthia: Yeah.
Trevor: But, I mean, if I added to all my magnetic energies.
Cynthia: Mmhm.
Trevor: If I added fifteen to all of them, it's not gonna change anything.
Cynthia: Right, it's not gonna change as long as it, you've added...
Trevor: ...to all of them.
Cynthia: ...it to all of them, right.

Trevor asking leading questions to his group

Barbara: Okay, we can talk about [h].
Maggie: Okay.
Barbara: I said it speeds up.
Trevor: Wait, hold on, did you say g, too?  Can we go back to g?
Maggie: Sure.  Okay, (reading) so based on your answers to e and f, would you say that the magnets and balls have more magnetic energy when they are tightly bonded or weakly bonded?
Barbara: I said it depends on they're talk-, this is the question I asked Adam. 
Maggie: Mmhm.
Barbara: If it's talking about this close from the magnet.
Trevor: That's, so, well distance from the magnet is, it determines both magnetic energy and how tightly bonded they are.  Would you agree with that.
Several: Mmhm.
Trevor: So (plays with experimental set-up).
Maggie: What if the mag-.
Trevor: Which ball is more tightly bonded?
Barbara: These two.
Maggie: [...]
Cynthia: The two that.
Trevor: Out of the two I'm pointing to.
Barbara: This one.
Trevor: This one.
Maggie: Yeah.
Trevor: Which one has more magnetic energy?
Barbara: That one.
Cynthia: This one.
Trevor: Okay, so the less tightly bonded one...
Cynthia: The more.
Trevor: The more, the more, the less tightly bonded is, the more magnetic energy it has.
Barbara: Thank you.
Trevor: Now that's sort of counter-intuitive, which is why they're asking the question.
Maggie: Okay, that was the problem.
Barbara: Yeah, that's not what I said.
Trevor: But you knew it. 
Barbara: Yeah.
Trevor: When I asked it that way, you had the answer!
Barbara: Yeah, but it's asking it that way.  That's what your teachers are doing, maybe in Baltimore.
Maggie: So even though it sounds counter, even though it sounds counter-intuitive, it makes sense.  Cause that was the problem I had, is I said, well, the further they are, the weaker they're bonded, and then the further they are, the more magnetic potential energy they have.
Trevor: I like [the way that sounds?].
Maggie: I teach logic, what do you want?
Trevor: QED!
Maggie: Therefore, but it didn't make sense, the more magnetic potential energy,...
Trevor: The weaker the bonds.
Maggie: The weaker the bonds, and that.
Trevor: Cause they have more POtential to release that magnetic energy.
Barbara: I wish they would stick in potential because it makes more sense when potential is in there.
Maggie: It still doesn't make sense, but that's okay.
Trevor: That still doesn't make sense?
Maggie: I don't like it any [...].  Logically, it foll-.  The logic is sound.  [What actually happens I'm not sure].  Like this last statement sounds wrong.
Trevor: What it, the more, the more, because the closer you are to something.
Maggie: Wait, hang on, hang on.  Let's change it to.
Cynthia: (Talking to herself, repeating Trevor's words:) The closer.
Maggie: I change the 'm' to 'g'.  That makes sense, the more gravitational potential energy...
Trevor: The weaker the gravity.
Maggie: Yeah, that actually makes sense.
Trevor: Between the two objects, right?  It's further away.
Maggie: That means it's higher. Okay.
Trevor: It has more potential to fall.
Maggie: It's just that magnets are a little unfamiliar to me.

Even Trevor's facial expressions when talking to his peers suggest to me that he is positioning himself as the authority:

(Play without sound)

This final episode (below) is so rich.  It shows Trevor's group members taking up his bid to be recognized as an authority and recognizing him as an expert.  This episode happens between the "Trevor explains to Cynthia" and "Trevor asks his group leading questions" clips above:

Barbara: I think I got it.  Now I'm gonna try to write it.
Maggie: Wait, say it one more time.
Barbara: Okay.
Maggie: Cause I think I was where you were yesterday.
Cynthia: Can I...
Maggie: ...Like I sort of have it but barely.
Barbara: Okay.
Cynthia: This is so complex, would it be possible to.  Barbara, would you mind if I kind of videoed and recorded this, just?
Trevor: What we're saying, you mean?
Barbara:  Not me talking.
Cynthia: Not you talking.  Okay, then I won't.
Barbara: Cause I'm not gonna say it right.
Trevor: You can videotape me talking.
Cynthia: Oh, thank you, Trevor!
Barbara: You get Trevor talking, get Trevor talking cause he'll say it right...
[Trevor says something to Maggie.]
Cynthia: This way I can prove I'm actually in a science class.
Barbara: Okay, so...
Maggie: ...So.
Barbara: Get it at 90.  So we'll say here, just for the sake of it, it has 10 J.
Maggie: 10 J.
Barbara: Of magnetic potential.
Maggie: Then you push it.
Barbara: If we push it, we give it a little...
Maggie:...a little bit of kinetic.
Barbara: Of one, and as it gets closer and closer. Here, it would just have like 2, the 1 from the push and this, this distance was equal to 9 J, cause it speeds up and pulls it.
Cynthia: But.
Barbara: And this was 1.
(Trevor starts talking to himself about his answer.)
Barbara: So here, this was 2 and then it hits it with 11.
Maggie: Okay.
Barbara: Okay, so then...
Maggie: It goes to zero.
Barbara: It goes to zero and so transfers all the 11...
Maggie: ...to here.
Barbara: This one's zero cause it's touching.  This one we're saying is 9.
Maggie: So now it has.
Barbara: I would say it's just a teeny less than 9.
Maggie: Eleven plus nine, right?
Barbara: Well, the thing is, is I think it's just eleven.  This is what I was asking Trevor, and Trevor, would you look?
Trevor: Yeah!
Barbara: It hits with 11.  This is 9 going gravitat-, I mean magnetic.
Maggie: Pointing that way.
Barbara: Potential.
Trevor: But don't, you can't think of.
(Barbara is saying something about 11.)
Cynthia: You can't give a direction.
Maggie: Ugh, I miss forces.
Barbara: You can't?
Maggie: Okay.
Trevor: No, but it's, there's this invisible...
All at the same time: Cynthia: But force wouldn't explain this.
Maggie: I know, I know, I know.
Barbara: [...] Is it taking the 9 or is it adding to it?
Trevor: Let me just say.  If this ball moves this way, 9 has to go up, because the position is what matters to magnetic energy.
Between C and M: Cynthia: That's kind of the beauty of this force, unless the polarities could magically reverse.
Maggie: Right, yeah.
Cynthia: Yeah, let's not go there.
Maggie: Yeah.
Between T and B: Trevor: If this ball moves this way, that nine can add to something else.
Barbara: Oh, okay.
Trevor: Right, but it's...
Barbara:...Okay, so the eleven transfers.
Maggie: So eleven plus nine.
Trevor: No.
Maggie: No.  (Throws head back.)
Trevor: The total energy, yes.  The total energy will be twenty.
Barbara: Yet it's.
Maggie: But then what?
Trevor: How much of it is magnetic energy, and how much is kinetic?
Maggie: Nine is magnetic.
Barbara: So eleven's kinetic.
Maggie: And eleven is kinetic.
Barbara: And.
Trevor: Right, and as it moves away, the kinetic actually goes down...
Cynthia: ...and the magnetic increases.
Trevor: Because it's escaping the magnet.  You use some of that energy up to escape the magnet.
Cynthia: Right.
Maggie: Okay.
Cynthia: But, but..
Trevor: ...But not that much...
Cynthia: ...But it's compensated...
Barbara:...All your numbers [are at the top here?]...
Cynthia:...It's compensated by that increase of magnetic, right?
(Maggie is talking to Barbara, but I cannot understand her.)
Cynthia: So in a sense, we've...
Trevor: I don't understand what you're saying.
Cynthia: If it moves further away, then the magnetic energy has increased.
Trevor: Increased.

In this episode, I see Trevor bidding to be recognized as a science expert when:

• He offers to be video-recorded by Cynthia.
• He talks to himself as he writes out his answer.  The three ladies at his table are talking to one another, and I interpret this to mean that they are still working their answers out.  I interpret Trevor's talking out loud to himself as he writes to indicate to these three that he has already finished his answer (and, in a sense, doesn't need their help).
• He positions himself as the knower when he responds to Barbara's questions.

I see Trevor's group members recognizing him as a science expert when:

• Cynthia says, "Oh, THANK YOU, Trevor!" when he offers to be video-recorded.  The way she says it comes across as submissive (?) to me, as though she is so gratified that someone as smart as Trevor would give her his attention.  (I'm exaggerating a bit to make my point.)  Cynthia goes on to say that she can use the video of Trevor talking as 'proof that she was in a science class.'
• Barbara responds to Trevor's offer to be recorded by saying that "he will get it right," comparing his (anticipated correct) answer to hers (which she anticipates will be incorrect).
• Barbara asks Trevor to check her reasoning as she explains it to Maggie (positioning Trevor as an expert and both herself and Maggie as learners).

I'm not sure yet how these videos might inform theory about science identity, but I think they have potential!

Teachers Struggle with Goals for Student Notebooks

On Wednesday of Week 2, Lezlie deWater gave a guest presentation on student science notebooks in the afternoon of E2. It kicked off with a book club discussion of two articles, one on Inquiry (Science, May 2011) and one on Drawing (Science, Aug 2011). During the small group discussion of the Inquiry article, Debra and Madonna (along with Jean and Wendy) in Group 2 talk about their mixed feelings on notebooks and student thinking. Leslie Atkins has joined their table and offers her opinion as well. 

For the first 40 seconds of the clip, Debra talks about feeling obligated to have students use science notebooks ("I feel like I am married to the idea that you have to have a journal") since she feels it is her responsibility to prepare them for college or industry. Madonna jumps in at 0:50 to counter Debra, saying that it is "not only the minimum here (points to notebook) but then are we pushing the minimum in terms of mental exploration (gestures to head)". Leslie interjects, saying that in her mind the important thing is for students to communicate scientific ideas to each other, not keep a perfect ledger.
Madonna then changes tack from her earlier point (caring about mental exploration) and speaks about very high achieving students she has worked with who have terrible notebooks, and how it is difficult to work with these sort of people in industry. At the end of the episode, though, Madonna acknowledges that there is a tension with the notebooks:

[00:02:14.19] Madonna: There is kind of a play of both. There is something to be said for actually physically writing stuff down, but maybe we focus to much on the production.

Debra, in response to Madonna, references Leslie, and says:

[00:02:29.02] Debra: But what I think I hear you saying is that if we can get them nailed down on the skill of thinking, of being able to communicate their thinking, then it doesn't matter what format."


In this episode, Debra and Madonna alternatively emphasize the importance of student thinking while they also express concerns about preparing students in the structures and formatting they perceive is needed for college and future careers.  The questions they are struggling with seem to be: Do we need to prepare students to do formal scientific documentation that will be expected of them later on? Will teaching students to think and communicate be sufficient for them to be able to tackle any type of scientific documentation in the future? By focusing on formal structure in the notebooks, are we masking our assessment of students' actual understanding of the physics? Are science journals/notebooks necessary and if so, what style is best for my classroom?

Assessments and LABELS

E1 130808 822 T7

Assessment

Prior to this conversation there was a discussion on assessment and how we evaluate students. Cynthia spoke of the European model of students having to articulate what they know in front of the teacher/class.

This clip spoke to some common components/issues of standards and assessment. Probably the most fascinating part of the video for me was that Cynthia was identifying kids in 5^th grade as advanced and regular education.