51-72

• Hammer, David
• Goldberg, Fred
• Fargason, Sharon

Energy, like “the whole of science…is nothing more than a refinement of everydaythinking” (Einstein, 1936). It is a refinement in two respects, both conceptually, inthe particular canonical features of the concept, and epistemologically, in the kindof intellectual pursuit the concept supports. Drawing on data from the thirdauthor’s third-grade class, we show evidence of children’s productive conceptualand epistemological resources for understanding energy. We discuss howresponsive teaching can help students tap into and refine these resources, as wellas the notion of responsive curriculum and our first steps in designing a prototype.

• Educational sciences
• Earth and related Environmental sciences

• Teaching
• Environmental education

energy, conceptual resources, epistemological resources, responsive teaching, responsive curriculum

Περιέχει βιβλιογραφία, Ειδικό αφιέρωμα: Energy in Education

1. Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: dilemmas of teaching elementaryschool Mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373-397.Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., Levin, D. M. & Grant, T. (2011). The missing disciplinary substance offormative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1109-1136.Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P. & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondaryscience: research into children’s ideas (London: Routledge).Duit, R. (1981). Students’ notions about the energy concept - before and after instruction. Paperpresented at conference, Problems concerning students’ representation of physics and chemistryknowledge, Ludwigsburg, W. Germany, 14-16 September.Duit, R. (1984). Learning the energy concept in school-empirical results from the Philippines andWest Germany. Physics Education, 19, 59-66.Einstein, A. (1936). Physics and reality. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 221(3), 349-382.Goldring, H., & Osborne, J. (1994). Students’ difficulties with Energy and related concepts.Physics Education, 29, 26-32.Hammer, D. (1997). Discovery learning and discovery teaching. Cognition and Instruction, 15(4),485-529.Hammer, D. (2004). The variability of student reasoning, lectures 1-3. In E. Redish & M.Vicentini (eds) Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School, Course CLVI (Bologna, Italy:Italian Physical Society), 279-340.Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E. & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. InJ. Mestre (ed.) Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (Greenwich, CT:Information Age Publishing), 89-119.Hammer, D., Russ, R., Scherr, R. E. & Mikeska, J. (2008). Identifying inquiry and conceptualizingstudents’ abilities. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (eds) Teaching scientific inquiry:recommendations for research and application (Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers), 138-156.Hodson, D. (1988). Toward a philosophically more valid science curriculum. Science Education,72(1), 19-40.Hodson, D. (1993). Philosophic stance of secondary-school science teachers, curriculumexperiences, and children’s understanding of science - some preliminary findings. Interchange,24(1-2), 41-52.Holton, G. J. & Brush, S. G. (2001). Physics, the human adventure: from Copernicus to Einstein andbeyond (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press).Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodr›guez, A. B. & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doingscience”: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.Koliopoulos, D., Christidou, I., Symidala, I. & Koutsiouba, M. (2009). Pre-energy reasoning inpreschool children. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 3(1), 123-140.Koliopoulos, D. & Argyropoulou, M. (2011). Constructing qualitative Energy concepts in aformal educational context with 6-7 year old students. Review of Science, Mathematics andICT Education, 5(1), 63-80.Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: the development of scientific reasoning (Cambridge, MA:MIT Press).Lawrence Hall of Science (2007). Matter and Energy. Full option Science system (Nashua, NH:Delta Education).Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science: language, learning & values (Norwood NJ: Ablex).Levin, D. M., Hammer, D. & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers’ attention to student thinking.Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142-154.Liu, X. & McKeough, A. (2005). Developmental growth in students’ concept of Energy: analysisof selected items from the TIMSS database. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 493-517.Metz, K. E. (2011). Disentangling robust developmental constraints from the instructionallymutable: young children’s epistemic reasoning about a study of their own design. Journal ofthe Learning Sciences, 20(1), 50-110.Millar, R. (2005). Teaching about Energy, Research Paper 2005/11 (York: University of York,Department of Educational Studies). Retrieved July 27, 2011 from http://www.testsite.lancsngfl.ac.uk/nationalstrategy/ks3/science/files/TeachingAboutEnergy(RobinMillar).pdf.Nordine, J., Krajcik, J. & Fortus, D. (2011). Transforming Energy instruction in middle school tosupport integrated understanding and future learning. Science Education, 95(4), 670-699.O’Neill, D. K. & Polman, J. L. (2004). Why educate “little scientists?”. Examining the potentialof practice-based scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 234-266.Papadouris, N., Constantinou,C. & Kyratsi, T. (2008). Students’ use of the Energy model toaccount for changes in physical systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 444-469.Radoff, J., Goldberg, F., Hammer, D. & Fargason, S. (2010). The beginnings of Energy in thirdgraders’ reasoning. In C. Singh, M. Sabella & S. Rebello (eds) 2010 Physics Education ResearchConference, Vol. 1289 (Portland OR: American Institute of Physics), 269-272.Redish, E. F. (2004). A theoretical framework for Physics Education research: modeling studentthinking. In E. Redish & M. Vincenini (ed.) Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School,Course CLVI (Bologna, Italy: Italian Physical Society), 1-63.Rosebery, A. S., Ogonowski, M., DiSchino, M. & Warren, B. (2010). “The coat traps all yourbody heat”: heterogeneity as fundamental to learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3),322-357.Roth, W.-M. (1995). Inventors, copycats, and everyone else - The emergence of sharedresources and practices as defining aspects of classroom communities. Science Education,79(5), 475-502.Sherin, B., Azevedo, F. S. & diSessa, A. (2005). Exploration zones: a framework for describing the emergent structure of learning activities. In R. Nemirovsky, A. S. Rosebery, B. Warren& J. Solomon (eds) Everyday matters in Science and Mathematics: studies of complex classroomevents (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), 329-366.Sodian, B., Zaitchik, D. & Carey, S. (1991). Young children’s differentiation of hypotheticalbeliefs from evidence. Child Development, 62(4), 753-766.Solomon, J. (1983a). Learning about Energy: how pupils think in two domains. European Journalof Science Education, 5, 49–59.Solomon, J. (1983b). Messy, contradictory, and obstinately persistent: a study of children’s outof-schoolideas about Energy. School Science Review, 65, 225–232.Trumper, R. (1993). Children’s Energy concepts: a cross-age study. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 15(2), 139-148.Tytler, R. & Peterson, S. (2004). From “try it and see” to strategic exploration: characterizingyoung children’s scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(1), 94-118.Watts, M. (1983). Some alternative views of Energy. Physics Education, 18, 213-216.Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry”: how preservice teachers reproduce thediscourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 41(5), 481-512.