- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Open Access

Negotiating energy dynamics through embodied action in a materially structured environment

Rachel E. Scherr1, Hunter G. Close2, Eleanor W. Close2, Virginia J. Flood3, Sarah B. McKagan1, Amy D. Robertson1, Lane Seeley1, Michael C. Wittmann3,4, and Stamatis Vokos1

  • 1Department of Physics, Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, Washington 98119, USA
  • 2Department of Physics, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas 78666, USA
  • 3Maine Center for Research in STEM Education, Orono, Maine 04469, USA
  • 4Department of Physics, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020105 – Published 12 July, 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.020105

Abstract

We provide evidence that a learning activity called Energy Theater engages learners with key conceptual issues in the learning of energy, including disambiguating matter flow and energy flow and theorizing mechanisms for energy transformation. A participationist theory of learning, in which learning is indicated by changes in speech and behavior, supports ethnographic analysis of learners’ embodied interactions with each other and the material setting. We conduct detailed analysis to build plausible causal links between specific features of Energy Theater and the conceptual engagement that we observe. Disambiguation of matter and energy appears to be promoted especially by the material structure of the Energy Theater environment, in which energy is represented by participants, while objects are represented by areas demarcated by loops of rope. Theorizing mechanisms of energy transformation is promoted especially by Energy Theater’s embodied action, which necessitates modeling the time ordering of energy transformations.

View figure in article

Article Text

Multimedia

References (116)

  1. P. A. Kraus and S. Vokos, The role of language in the teaching of energy: The case of heat energy, Washington State Teach. Assoc. J. (2011), http://www.spu.edu/depts/physics/documents/WSTA_KrausVokos.pdf.
  2. B. W. Dreyfus, E. F. Redish, and J. W. Watkins, Students’ views of macroscopic and microscopic energy in physics and biology, AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 179 (2012).
  3. R. E. Scherr, H. G. Close, S. B. McKagan, and S. Vokos, Representing energy. I. Representing a substance ontology for energy, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020114 (2012).
  4. R. E. Scherr, H. G. Close, E. W. Close, and S. Vokos, Representing energy. II. Energy tracking representations, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020115 (2012).
  5. H. G. Close, L. S. DeWater, E. W. Close, R. E. Scherr, and S. B. McKagan, Using The Algebra Project method to regiment discourse in an energy course for teachers, AIP Conf. Proc. 1289, 9 (2010).
  6. E. W. Close, R. E. Scherr, H. G. Close, and S. B. McKagan, Development of proximal formative assessment skills in video-based teacher professional development, AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 19 (2012).
  7. H. G. Close and R. E. Scherr, Differentiation of energy concepts through speech and gesture in interaction, AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 151 (2012).
  8. S. B. McKagan, R. E. Scherr, E. W. Close, and H. G. Close, Criteria for creating and categorizing forms of energy, AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 279 (2012).
  9. B. W. Harrer, R. E. Scherr, M. C. Wittmann, H. G. Close, and B. W. Frank, Elements of formative assessment in learners’ discourse about energy, AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 203 (2012).
  10. A. R. Daane, S. Vokos, and R. E. Scherr, Conserving energy in physics and society: Creating an integrated model of energy and the second law of thermodynamics, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513, 114 (2013).
  11. L. C. McDermott and L. S. DeWater, The need for special science courses for teachers: Two perspectives, in Inquiring into Inquiry Learning and Teaching in Science, edited by J. Minstrell and E. van Zee (AAAS, Washington, DC, 2000), http://www.aaas.org/programs/education/about_ehr/pubs/inquiry.shtml.
  12. P. S. Shaffer and L. C. McDermott, A research-based approach to improving student understanding of the vector nature of kinematical concepts, Am. J. Phys. 73, 921 (2005).
  13. L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and C. P. Constantinou, Preparing teachers to teach physics and physical science by inquiry, Phys. Educ. 35, 411 (2000).

  14. For our view of the analogy between energy and money, see Ref. [4].

  15. R. E. Scherr, A. R. Daane, and S. Vokos, Learner understanding of mechanisms of energy transfer in complex physical processes (unpublished).
  16. S. B. McKagan et al., Energy forms as dynamic tools for understanding complex real-world scenarios (unpublished).
  17. E. Brewe, Energy as a substancelike quantity that flows: Theoretical considerations and pedagogical consequences, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 020106 (2011).
  18. R. Duit, Should energy be illustrated as something quasi-material?, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 9, 139 (1987).
  19. G. Swackhamer, Cognitive resources for understanding energy (unpublished), http://modeling.asu.edu/modeling/CognitiveResources-Energy.pdf.
  20. R. Millar, Teaching about energy, Department of Educational Studies Research Paper, York University, 2005, http://www.york.ac.uk/media/educationalstudies/documents/research/Paper11Teachingaboutenergy.pdf.
  21. A. diSessa, Ontologies in pieces: Response to Chi and Slotta, Cognit. Instr. 10, 272 (1993), http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233731.
  22. G. Falk, F. Herrmann, and G. Bruno Schmid, Energy forms or energy carriers?, Am. J. Phys. 51, 1074 (1983).
  23. T. G. Amin, Conceptual metaphor meets conceptual change, Hum. Dev. 52, 165 (2009).

  24. The description of energy as being located in objects can be a concern for gravitational and other forms of potential energy, which are properly located in a system of objects or in a field, rather than in individual objects. In our instructional contexts, we allow learners to locate such forms of energy either in isolated objects, in systems of objects, or in fields, as is appropriate to the level and learning goals of the course. This approach allows for iterative negotiation and refinement of the meaning of systems, an important learning goal in the study of energy. Alternatively, learners may identify a field as a new kind of (nonmaterial) object that can contain energy.

  25. J. Streeck, C. Goodwin, and C. LeBaron, Embodied interaction in the material world: An introduction, in Embodied Interaction, edited by J. Streeck, C. Goodwin, and C. LeBaron (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2011), pp. 1–28.
  26. C. Goodwin, Action and embodiment within situated human interaction, J. Pragmatics 32, 1489 (2000).
  27. R. Stevens, The missing bodies of mathematical thinking and learning have been found, J. Learn. Sci. 21, 337 (2012).
  28. E. Hutchins and S. Nomura, Collaborative construction of multimodal utterances, in Embodied Interaction, edited by J. Streeck, C. Goodwin, and C. LeBaron (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2011).
  29. T. Koschmann and C. LeBaron, Learner articulation as interactional achievement: Studying the conversation of gesture, Cognit. Instr. 20, 249 (2002).
  30. E. Hutchins and L. Palen, Constructing meaning from space, gesture, and speech, in Discourse, Tools, and Reasoning: Situated Cognition and Technologically Supported Environments, edited by L. B. Resnick (Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 1997).
  31. G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought (Basic Books, New York, 1999).
  32. G. Lakoff and R. E. Nuñez, Where Mathematics Comes from: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being (Basic Books, New York, 2000).
  33. R. Nuñez, L. D. Edwards, and J. F. Matos, Embodied cognition as grounding for situatedness and context in mathematics education, Educ. Stud. Math. 39, 45 (1999).
  34. M. Singer, J. Radinsky, and S. R. Goldman, The role of gesture in meaning construction, Discourse Process. 45, 365 (2008).
  35. S. C. Broaders, S. W. Cook, Z. Mitchell, and S. Goldin-Meadow, Making children gesture brings out implicit knowledge and leads to learning, J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 136, 539 (2007).
  36. S. W. Cook and S. Goldin-Meadow, The role of gesture in learning: Do children use their hands to change their minds?, J. Cognit. Dev. 7, 211 (2006).
  37. S. W. Cook, Z. Mitchell, and S. Goldin-Meadow, Gesturing makes learning last, Cognition 106, 1047 (2008).
  38. L. D. Edwards, Gestures and conceptual integration in mathematical talk, Educ. Stud. Math. 70, 127 (2009).
  39. K. A. Kastens, S. Agrawal, and L. S. Liben, Research methodologies in science education: The role of gestures in geoscience teaching and learning, J. Geosci. Educ. 56, 362 (2008).
  40. M. Kim, W.-M. Roth, and J. Thom, Children’s gestures and the embodied knowledge of geometry, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 9, 207 (2011).
  41. L. Radford, Why do gestures matter? Sensuous cognition and the palpability of mathematical meanings, Educ. Stud. Math. 70, 111 (2009).
  42. W.-M. Roth and D. V. Lawless, When up is down and down is up: Body orientation, proximity, and gestures as resources, Lang. Soc. 31, 1 (2002).
  43. W.-M. Roth and M. Welzel, From activity to gestures and scientific language, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 38, 103 (2001).
  44. R. Nemirovsky and F. Ferrera, Mathematical imagination and embodied cognition, Educ. Stud. Math. 70, 159 (2009).
  45. E. M. Crowder, Gestures at work in sense-making science talk, J. Learn. Sci. 5, 173 (1996).
  46. R. Nemirovsky, C. Rasmussen, G. Sweeney, and M. Wawro, When the classroom floor becomes the complex plane: Addition and multiplication as ways of bodily navigation, J. Learn. Sci. 21, 287 (2012).
  47. W.-M. Roth and D. V. Lawless, Scientific investigations, metaphorical gestures, and the emergence of abstract scientific concepts, Learn. Instr. 12, 285 (2002).
  48. R. E. Scherr, Gesture analysis for physics education researchers, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010101 (2008).
  49. A. Touval and G. Westreich, Teaching sums of angle measures: A kinesthetic approach, Math. Teach. 96, 230 (2003).
  50. P. M. Ross, D. A. Tronson, and R. J. Ritchie, Increasing conceptual understanding of glycolysis and the Krebs cycle using role play, Am. Biol. Teach. 70, 163 (2008).
  51. V. Singh, The Electron Runaround: Understanding electric circuit basics through a classroom activity, Phys. Teach. 48, 309 (2010).
  52. C. A. Manogue, P. J. Siemens, J. Tate, K. Browne, M. L. Niess, and A. J. Wolfer, Paradigms in Physics: A new upper-division curriculum, Am. J. Phys. 69, 978 (2001).
  53. C. A. Morrow, Kinesthetic Astronomy: The sky time lesson, Phys. Teach. 38, 252 (2000).
  54. E. L. Reinfeld and M. A. Hartman, Kinesthetic life cycle of stars, Astron. Educ. Rev. 7, 158 (2008).
  55. T. Richards, Using kinesthetic activities to teach Ptolemaic and Copernican retrograde motion, Sci. Educ. 21, 899 (2012).
  56. A. Begel, D. D. Garcia, and S. Wolfman, Kinesthetic learning in the classroom, SIGCSE Bull. 36, 183 (2004).
  57. V. Colella, Participatory simulations: Building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modeling, J. Learn. Sci. 9, 471 (2000).
  58. M. Resnick and U. Wilensky, Diving into complexity: Developing probabilistic decentralized thinking through role-playing activities, J. Learn. Sci. 7, 153 (1998).
  59. J. P. Chinnicci, J. W. Yue, and K. M. Torres, Students as “human chromosomes” in role-playing mitosis and meiosis, Am. Biol. Teach. 66, 35 (2004).
  60. M. A. Wyn and S. J. Stegink, Role-playing mitosis, Am. Biol. Teach. 62, 378 (2000).
  61. V. Zimmerman, Moving poems: Kinesthetic learning in the literature classroom, Pedagogy 2, 409 (2002).
  62. H. G. Close and P. R. L. Heron, Student understanding of the angular momentum of classical particles, Am. J. Phys. 79, 1068 (2011).
  63. H. Pfister and P. Laws, Kinesthesia-1: Apparatus to experience 1-D motion, Phys. Teach. 33, 214 (1995).
  64. P. Pantidos and S. Patapis, Kinesthetic transverse wave demonstration, Phys. Teach. 43, 344 (2005).
  65. J. Lave, Situating learning in communities of practice, in Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, edited by L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, and S. D. Teasley (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 1991), pp. 63–82.
  66. A. Sfard, On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one, Educ. Res. 27, 4 (1998).
  67. A. Sfard, When the rules of discourse change, but nobody tells you: Making sense of mathematics learning from a commognitive standpoint, J. Learn. Sci. 16, 565 (2007).
  68. L. S. Vygotsky, The development of scientific concepts in childhood: The design of a working hypothesis, in Thought and Language, edited by A. Kozulin (Massachusetts Institiute of Technology, Boston, 1986).
  69. J. V. Wertsch, Mediation, in The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky, edited by H. Daniels, M. Cole, and J. V. Wertsch (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2007).
  70. A. Kendon, Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters, Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1990), Vol. 7.
  71. B. Jordan and A. Henderson, Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice, J. Learn. Sci. 4, 39 (1995).
  72. R. D. Pea, Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning environments for transformative communications, J. Learn. Sci. 3, 285 (1994).
  73. T. Rodden et al., Designing novel interactional workspaces to support face to face consultations, in Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems–CHI ’03 (ACM Press, Chicago, 2003).
  74. R. Stevens, Divisions of labor in school and in the workplace: Comparing computer and paper-supported activities across settings, J. Learn. Sci. 9, 373 (2000).
  75. E. Hutchins, How a cockpit remembers its speeds, Cogn. Sci. 19, 265 (1995).
  76. F. Erickson, Talk and Social Theory: Ecologies of Speaking and Listening in Everyday Life (Polity Press, Malden, MA, 2004).
  77. R. P. Mcdermott, K. Gospodinoff, and J. Aron, Criteria for an ethnographically adequate description of concerted activities and their contexts, Semiotica 24, 245 (1978).
  78. E. Schegloff, Whose text? Whose context?, Discourse Soc. 8, 165 (1997).
  79. F. Erickson, Qualitative methods in research on teaching, in Handbook of Research on Teaching, edited by M. C. Wittrock (Macmillan, New York, 1986), pp. 119–161.
  80. N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research, in The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2005).
  81. C. Goodwin, Professional vision, Am. Anthropol. 96, 606 (1994).
  82. K. M. Anderson-Levitt, Ethnography, in Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research, edited by J. L. Green (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2006), pp. 279–295.
  83. R. E. Scherr and D. Hammer, Student behavior and epistemological framing: Examples from collaborative active-learning activities in physics, Cognit. Instr. 27, 147 (2009).
  84. P. Hutchison and D. Hammer, Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom, Sci. Educ. 94, 506 (2010).
  85. D. Tannen and C. Wallat, Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview, in Framing in Discourse, edited by D. Tannen (Oxford University Press, New York, 1993), pp. 57–76.
  86. G. L. MacLachlan and I. Reid, Framing and Interpretation (Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Victoria, Australia, 1994).
  87. D. Hammer et al., Resources, framing, and transfer, in Transfer of Learning: Research and Perspectives, edited by J. Mestre (Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, 2005), pp. 89–120.
  88. E. Goffman, Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience (Northeastern University Press, Boston, 1986).
  89. W. C. Salmon, Causality and Explanation (Oxford University Press, New York, 1998).
  90. J. A. Maxwell, Using qualitative methods for causal explanation, Field Meth. 16, 243 (2004).
  91. J. A. Maxwell, Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education, Educ. Res. 33, 3 (2004).
  92. B. W. Frank and R. E. Scherr, Interactional processes for stabilizing conceptual coherences in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020101 (2012).
  93. R. E. Scherr and E. F. Redish, Newton’s zeroth law: Learning from listening to our students, Phys. Teach. 43, 41 (2005).
  94. National Research Council, A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2012).
  95. M. E. Loverude, Do students conceptualize energy as a material substance?, in Physics Education Research Conference, Boise, Idaho, 2002, edited by S. V. Franklin, K. Cummings, and J. Marx, http://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=4325&DocID=1140
  96. American Academy for the Advancement of Science, Benchmarks for Science Literacy (Oxford University Press, New York, 1993).

  97. The role of the Poynting vector in energy transfer in a real electric circuit is not among the learning objectives at the precollege level. See Refs. [103, 104].

  98. E. W. Close, H. G. Close, S. B. McKagan, and R. E. Scherr, Energy in action: The construction of physics ideas in multiple modes, AIP Conf. Proc. 1289, 105 (2010).
  99. L. C. McDermott and P. S. Shaffer, Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity, Part I: Investigation of student understanding, Am. J. Phys. 60, 994 (1992).
  100. D. M. Shipstone, A study of children’s understanding of electricity in simple DC circuits, Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 6, 185 (1984).
  101. M. T. H. Chi., J. D. Slotta, and N. De Leeuw, From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts, Learn. Instr. 4, 27 (1994).
  102. R. Osborne, Towards modifying children’s ideas about electric current, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 1, 73 (1983).
  103. B. S. Davis and L. Kaplan, Poynting vector flow in a circular circuit, Am. J. Phys. 79, 1155 (2011).
  104. I. Galili and E. Goihbarg, Energy transfer in electrical circuits: A qualitative account, Am. J. Phys. 73, 141 (2005).
  105. R. Chabay and B. Sherwood, Restructuring the introductory electricity and magnetism course, Am. J. Phys. 74, 329 (2006).
  106. E. Ochs, P. Gonzales, and S. Jacoby, “When I come down I’m in the domain state”: Grammar and graphic representation in the interpretive activity of physicists, in Interaction and Grammar, edited by E. Ochs, E. Schegloff, and S. Thompson (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996), pp. 328–369.
  107. R. S. Russ, J. E. Coffey, D. Hammer, and P. Hutchison, Making classroom assessment more accountable to scientific reasoning: A case for attending to mechanistic thinking, Sci. Educ. 93, 875 (2009).
  108. R. S. Russ, R. E. Scherr, D. Hammer, and J. Mikeska, Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science, Sci. Educ. 92, 499 (2008).
  109. D. Hammer and E. van Zee, Seeing the Science in Children’s Thinking: Case Studies of Student Inquiry in Physical Science (Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH, 2006).
  110. D. M. Levin et al., Becoming a Responsive Science Teacher: Focusing on Student Thinking in Secondary Science (National Science Teachers Association Press, Arlington, VA, 2013).
  111. R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1969).
  112. National Research Council, National Science Education Standards (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1996).
  113. W. H. Kaper and M. J. Goedhart, “Forms of energy,” an intermediary language on the road to thermodynamics? Part I, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 24, 81 (2002).

  114. Mechanisms for both transfer and transformation are included in the representation we call Energy Tracking Diagrams, a static graphic representation of energy processes derived from Energy Theater [4].

  115. M. Wiser and S. Carey, When heat and temperature were one, in Mental Models, edited by D. Genter and A. Stevens (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1983), pp. 267–297.

  116. Energy Tracking Diagrams may support similar reasoning [4]. Though these static graphical representations lack the embodied action that is afforded by Energy Theater, they refer to Energy Theater’s embodied action, and thus may share some of the same affordances.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020105– Published 12 July, 2013
  • Received 18 January 2013
Article part of CHORUS
Creative Commons Logo

This article is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation