This coming academic year I need to finish writing the Inquiry book and make significant progress on the TE work. However, it would be really nice to get some papers that I've given up on back in the pipeline. Not sure how or when to make that happen. Next year is time to start looking into next grants, too.
1. Rejected from JLS after two rounds of review:
When arguments become arguing: Applying a commognitive framework to scientific discourse
In this article, I apply a framework, developed in the context of mathematics education research, to interpret a conflict that occurred in a scientific discussion. I begin by introducing the conflict and demonstrating the failure of approaches that consider solely the content of the argument to account for the conflict. I then provide an overview of the framework that will be used to understand this conflict, that of commognition. Using transcripts from scientific discourse, I offer examples of important routines and meta-rules of scientific discourse. Drawing on these routines, I demonstrate that the conflict, which at first blush seems rooted in contradictory scientific content ideas, stems from a difference in the meta-rules that the participants apply to the discourse. This analysis will extend the notion of commognitive conflict to scientific discourse and demonstrate that commognitive conflict is possible between two people familiar with both of the conflicting discourses. Additionally, the analysis highlight a problem with the prioritizing of evidence in scientific discourse, and for argumentation research that analyzes arguments for one “best” structure or means of endorsing scientific narratives. Implications for education and future directions for research are discussed.
2. Revise and Resubmit at JLS from 10 years ago:
More than Mapping: Analogies as Representations in Scientific Discourse:
Research on analogy in science education has focused less on the role of analogy as tool for the construction of scientific ideas, and instead focused on analogy as a means of conveying particular content ideas. Such analogies I refer to as authoritative analogies. Dialogic analogies, those that arise spontaneously by students, scientists and teachers as they actively try to construct meanings and understand ideas, are far less researched and understood. This article presents transcripts of analogies in scientific discourse, detailing five characteristics of dialogic analogies. I then provide an analysis of these, suggesting that the work done by analogies in scientific discourse is not in mapping new inferences onto target concepts; instead, the base serves as a representation of the target concept designed to achieve intersubjectivity. That is, in dialogic discourse, analogies are not introduced to solve a cognitive problem, but a communication problem and the epistemic value of analogy is secondary to the communicative value.
3. Never sent, but want to send to Science & Education:
Inhaling Calories: Models of Energy in Biology & Physics
Recommendations from the Next Generation Science Standards and the Framework for K-12 Science Education call for instructors to present “crosscutting concepts” across courses and between disciplines. Among these is the concept of energy, a topic identified as one of seven “crosscutting concepts,” and one where we expected to find a strong overlap between the disciplines. In this paper, I analyze the conceptual metaphor, common in introductory biology, that a food molecule “has” energy and discuss how that claim is at odds with the ways in which physics describes objects that have energy. I argue that the difference between biologists’ and physicists’ descriptions of energy stem from different disciplinary questions and frameworks. This analysis suggests that research and curricular development in interdisciplinary areas may benefit from paying explicit attention to varying disciplinary goals and how those shape the ways in which “crosscutting concepts” have meaning within disciplines. Furthermore, rather than curriculum and instruction scaffolding students’ construction of one “best” model of energy that will work across scientific disciplines and does not “establish misconceptions,” this analysis argues that a productive understanding of energy will require that learners construct and develop a range of models for this (and other) concepts, suitable for the myriad disciplines in which energy finds a home.
4. Rejected from C&I shortly after dissertation defense:
The variability of concepts in student-generated analogies: Arguments for a categorization perspective
Analogies are often used in science classrooms by teachers and in curricula, and methods for their use and models of their structure are the subjects of numerous articles. The most widely known and applied model of analogy comprehension is Gentner’s (1983) theory of structure-mapping. In this theory, it is argued that analogies are comprehended by two interrelated mechanisms: alignment and projection. The assumptions this theory makes regarding the structure and nature of representations of concepts is one that has been challenged in other fields, notably psycholinguistics, categorization and education. In this paper, I review the past research on manifold ontologies of mind, support these views with data from analogy creation and usage, and contrast this with assumptions made by structure-mapping. I argue that models of analogies that entail unitary models of mind do not capture the fluid nature and context sensitivity of analogy use. Categorization, in its non-classical sense, entails a manifold structure of mind and, for this and other reasons, is a better description of analogies generated by students in scientific discourse. This critique of the structure-mapping model of analogical reasoning is influenced by and has implications for the way in which we use analogies in instruction. In particular, analogy use in science education and the research concerning analogy should shift focus from transfer to discourse strategy.
5. Started after the summer at Energy Project. Never finished:
Creating Work: Developing a Mechanistic Model for Energy
Never wrote an abstract... but the first paragraph is:
A typical approach to introducing the work-energy theorem begins with a definition of work, a definition of kinetic energy, and presents a proof of the relationship between work and changes in kinetic energy (e.g., ...). This deductive-nomological approach stands in stark contrast to the approach taken in the Energy Project, a professional development program that explores the teaching of energy (cite). Here, by creating and refining representations that model energy transfers and transformations for a range of scenarios, teachers (generally in their second year in the program) examine patterns in these representations and propose laws for the relationship between forces and energy.
The major claim is this: by asking teachers to model energy transfers and transformations, they engage in deeply scientific work and develop rigorous and scientifically meaningful - but unique - conclusions about work and energy. (or something like that...) I would then explain what I mean by "rigorous" and "scientifically meaningful but unique" (and show what that looks like).
6. Had a PERC paper rejected (bah! it was a great paper!) and tried turning into a longer paper, but never submitted. I kind of love this paper.
Representing Energy for a Physics of Processes & Causation
(hm. this looks familiar!) A typical approach to introducing the work-energy theorem begins with a definition of work, a definition of kinetic energy, and presents a mathematical proof of the relationship between the two. In the Energy Project, a professional development effort, teachers constructed a set of “laws” relating energy changes with forces. At first glance their laws bear little resemblance to the work-energy theorem. However, these laws are not only consistent with the work-energy theorem, but they present the theorem in a way that is explicitly causal. In this paper, I discuss how the representational system of Energy Theater facilitated the development of causal laws, drawing on Sherin’s (1995) work on how symbol systems affects students’ conceptualization of physics, in which he concluded “algebra-physics can be characterized as a physics of balance and equilibrium, and programming-physics a physics of processes and causation” (p. 421).
other littler things:
1. TPT: gelatin eyeballs
2. "zero speed is two frames long" -- using stop-motion to teach kinematics
