The Dark Matter of Lab Work: Illuminating the Negotiation of Disciplined Perception in Mechanics

This study examines the practical work of a pair of students and an instructor using probeware in a mechanics lab. The aim of the study is to describe and discuss a type of interactional sequence that we refer to as dark matter, the ordinary backdrop to the extraordinary sequences that are easily recognizable as clear-cut instances of learning. Although this work is downplayed in the research literature, describing it is critical to properly understanding lab work as an educational practice. With a focus on the negotiation of disciplined perception, we analyze a number of episodes wherein a pair of students and an instructor struggle with the construction and interpretation of a graph depicting a linear relationship between force and acceleration. We demonstrate an intimate interplay between how the students display their problems and understandings and how the instructor tries to make the subject matter content visible and thus learnable. The analyzed episodes are illuminating with regard to the analytical notion of disciplined perception as applied to graph interpretation; the cognitive and practical competencies involved in producing, recognizing, and understanding graphs in mechanics; and the interactive work by which these competencies are made into objects of learning and instruction.

[1]  Jeremy Roschelle,et al.  Beyond romantic versus sceptic: a microanalysis of conceptual change in kinematics , 1998 .

[2]  R. Sternberg What Is an “Expert Student?” , 2003 .

[3]  Wolff‐Michael Roth,et al.  Knowing What You Tell, Telling What You Know: Uncertainty and Asymmetries of Meaning in Interpreting Graphical Data , 2006 .

[4]  Karen P. Macbeth The situated achievements of novices learning academic writing as a cultural curriculum , 2004 .

[5]  J. Clement Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics , 1982 .

[6]  C. Goodwin Practices of Color Classification , 2000 .

[7]  D. Hestenes,et al.  A mechanics baseline test , 1992 .

[8]  K. Koedinger,et al.  Designing Knowledge Scaffolds to Support Mathematical Problem Solving , 2005 .

[9]  Emanuel A. Schegloff,et al.  Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other‐initiated repair , 1997 .

[10]  L. Schauble,et al.  Design Experiments in Educational Research , 2003 .

[11]  Douglas Macbeth A Commentary on Instructional Design , 2002 .

[12]  R. Hake Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses , 1998 .

[13]  Abbie Brown,et al.  Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in c , 1992 .

[14]  B. Asher The Professional Vision , 1994 .

[15]  Cecilia E. Ford Collaborative Construction of Task Activity: Coordinating Multiple Resources in a High School Physics Lab , 1999 .

[16]  Ference Marton,et al.  Sameness and Difference in Transfer , 2006 .

[17]  Eric Livingston,et al.  The Ethnomethodological Foundations of Mathematics , 1986 .

[18]  Roni Jo Draper,et al.  Symbolizing and Communicating in Mathematics Classrooms: Perspectives on Discourse, Tools, and Instructional Design , 2003 .

[19]  Ronald K. Thornton,et al.  RealTime Physics, Module 1, Mechanics , 1998 .

[20]  Robert F. Tinker Microcomputer–Based Labs: Educational Research and Standards , 1996, NATO ASI Series.

[21]  L. Mason,et al.  Reconsidering conceptual change: issues in theory and practice , 2002 .

[22]  G. Kelly,et al.  FORUM: Toward a Phenomenology of Interviews , 2006 .

[23]  R. Driver,et al.  Pupils and Paradigms: a Review of Literature Related to Concept Development in Adolescent Science Students , 1978 .

[24]  H. Garfinkel Studies in Ethnomethodology , 1968 .

[25]  Richard D. Heyman LANGUAGE USE AND SCHOOL PERFORMANCE IN A NATIVE CLASSROOM , 1984 .

[26]  Ronald K. Thornton,et al.  Learning motion concepts using real‐time microcomputer‐based laboratory tools , 1990 .

[27]  Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry , 2003 .

[28]  J. Greeno,et al.  Thinking Practices in Mathematics and Science Learning , 1998 .

[29]  Libby Hemphill,et al.  Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions, 2nd ed , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[30]  Stella Vosniadou,et al.  New Perspectives on Conceptual Change , 1999 .

[31]  Ronald K. Thornton,et al.  Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula , 1998 .

[32]  Magdalene Lampert,et al.  Talking Mathematics in School: Studies of Teaching and Learning , 1998 .

[33]  Lucy Suchman,et al.  Embodied Practices of Engineering Work , 2000 .

[34]  Lucy Suchman,et al.  Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions , 2006 .

[35]  Ricardo Nemirovsky,et al.  Learning to See: Making Sense of the Mathematics of Change in Middle School , 2004, Int. J. Comput. Math. Learn..

[36]  L. McDermott,et al.  Resource Letter: PER-1: Physics Education Research , 1999 .

[37]  P. Cobb,et al.  Cognitive and Situated Learning Perspectives in Theory and Practice , 1999 .

[38]  Mary Elizabeth Lynch,et al.  The externalized retina: Selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences , 1988 .

[39]  H. Garfinkel,et al.  Two incommensurable, asymmetrically alternate technologies of social analysis , 1992 .

[40]  D. Norman,et al.  To Ask a Question, One Must Know Enough to Know What Is Not Known. Report No. 7802. , 1978 .

[41]  Ricardo Nemirovsky,et al.  Body Motion and Graphing , 1998 .

[42]  Jonas Ivarsson,et al.  Differences that make a difference : Contrasting the local enactments of two technologies in a kinematics lab , 2008 .

[43]  D. Hestenes,et al.  Force concept inventory , 1992 .

[44]  M. Halliday,et al.  FORUM: TOWARD A PHENOMENOLOGY OF INTERVIEWS LESSONS FROM THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF INTERVIEWS , 2005 .

[45]  Priscilla W. Laws,et al.  Workshop Physics Activity Guide , 1996 .

[46]  Kerstin Bergqvist,et al.  Seeing the Light: Discourse and Practice in the Optics Lab , 1997 .

[47]  Robert J. Beichner,et al.  THE EFFECT OF SIMULTANEOUS MOTION PRESENTATION AND GRAPH GENERATION IN A KINEMATICS LAB , 1990 .

[48]  Talking about skill: making objects, technologies and communities visible , 2003 .

[49]  J. Roschelle,et al.  Misconceptions Reconceived: A Constructivist Analysis of Knowledge in Transition , 1994 .

[50]  Harvey Sacks,et al.  Lectures on Conversation , 1995 .

[51]  Kenneth Tobin,et al.  Cascades of inscriptions and the re-presentation of nature: how numbers, tables, graphs, and money come to re-present a rolling ball , 1997 .

[52]  H. Dreyfus Intelligence without representation – Merleau-Ponty's critique of mental representation The relevance of phenomenology to scientific explanation , 2002 .

[53]  Charles Goodwin,et al.  Formulating the Triangle of Doom , 2007 .

[54]  R. Stevens,et al.  Talking Mathematics in School: Disciplined Perception: Learning to See in Technoscience , 1998 .

[55]  Brent Ronald Royuk,et al.  INTERACTIVE-ENGAGEMENT VS. COOKBOOK LABORATORY PROCEDURES IN MBL MECHANICS EXERCISES , 2002 .

[56]  H. Garfinkel,et al.  Temporal order in laboratory work , 1983 .

[57]  Charles Goodwin,et al.  The Blackness of Black: Color Categories as Situated Practice , 1997 .

[58]  Oskar Lindwall,et al.  Vulgar competence, ethnomethodological indifference and curricular design , 2005, CSCL.

[59]  Elizabeth Stokoe,et al.  Constructing discussion tasks in university tutorials: shifting dynamics and identities , 2002 .

[60]  Emanuel A. Schegloff,et al.  Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action , 1996, American Journal of Sociology.

[61]  Jack Bilmes Problems and resources in analyzing Northern Thai conversation for English language readers , 1996 .

[62]  Jonte Bernhard,et al.  Physics Learning and Microcomputer Based Laboratory (MBL) Learning Effects of Using MBL as a Technological and as a Cognitive Tool , 2003 .

[63]  Thomas Nickles,et al.  What is a problem that we may solve it? , 1981, Synthese.

[64]  L. Suchman Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd edition). , 2007 .

[65]  Charles Goodwin,et al.  Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities , 2007 .

[66]  D. Macbeth,et al.  Classroom Encounters with the Unspeakable: "Do You See, Danelle?". , 1994 .

[67]  E. Schegloff Sequence Organization In Interaction , 2007 .

[68]  S. Woolgar,et al.  Representation in Scientific Practice , 1990 .

[69]  Wolff-Michael Roth,et al.  Affordances of computers in teacher‐student interactions: The case of interactive physics™ , 1995 .

[70]  Wolff-Michael Roth,et al.  Graphing: Cognitive ability or practice? , 1997 .

[71]  Lucy A. Suchman,et al.  Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication (Learning in Doing: Social, , 1987 .