Hammer 1997 PDF

Discovery Learning and Discovery Teaching
Author(s): David Hammer

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Cognition and Instruction, Vol. 15, No. 4 (1997), pp. 485-529
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233776 .
Accessed: 29/10/2012 11:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Cognition and
Instruction.
http://www.jstor.org
COGNITION ANDINSTRUCTION, 15(4),485-529
? 1997,Lawrence
Copyright Associates,Inc.
Erlbaum
Discovery Learningand
Discovery Teaching
David Hammer
Department of Education
Tufts University
Teachers interestedin promotingstudentinquiryoften feel a tension between that

agendaandthe moretraditionalagendaof "coveringthe content."Effortsin education
reformdevote substantialtime to addressingthis tension, primarilythroughcurricu-
lum reform, paring the traditionalcontent and adoptinginquiry-orientedmethods.
Discovery learning approaches,in particular,are designed to engage students in
inquiry through which, guided by the teacher and materials,they "discover"the
intendedcontent.Still, the tension remains,for example,in momentswhen students
make discoveries otherthanas intended.
How teachersexperience and negotiatethese momentsdepends largely on their
expectationsof curriculumand instruction.For some, successful instructionentails
progress through a planned set of observations and ideas, and such moments of
divergence may representimpediments.Others see the classroom as an arena,not
only for studentexplorationbut also for teacherexploration,of the students'under-
standingand reasoning,of the subject matter,of what constitutesprogresstoward
expertiseandhow to facilitatethatprogress.Forthem,successfulinstructiondepends
on teachers'often unanticipatedperceptionsandinsights.One mightcall this discov-
ery teaching.
This articlepresentsa detailedaccountof a week of learningand instructionfrom
my high school physics course to provide a context for discussion of the role and
demandsof teacherinquiry.For the view supportedhere,the coordinationof student
inquiry and traditionalcontent is not simply a matterof reducing the latter and
welcoming the former. It is a matter of discerning and responding to students'
particularstrengthsand needs.
Requestsforreprints
shouldbe sentto DavidHammer, of Education,
Department TuftsUniversity,
MA 02155.E-mail:dhammer@tufts.edu
Medford,
486 HAMMER
A MOMENTFROMA PHYSICSCLASS
Jean,Greg,Jack,andJulie'areat a labbenchin a high school physicsclass, working

on Section 4.2 of ElectrostaticsActivities for Students(Morse, 1991).2 Following
the instructions,they have built the device shown in Figure 1, with two plastic
straws attachedto an aluminumpie plate, one straw wrappedin aluminumfoil.
They have called me, their teacher,to their lab bench to explain what they have
found:If theyputa chargeon theplate,thefoil-coveredstrawalso becomescharged,
butthe plasticstrawdoes not.JeanasksGregto tell me his ideafor why this happens.
Greg: Because this [indicatesthe plate] is aluminum,right?And this [the

foil-covered straw]is the same thing,and we've alreadyprovedthat
this [the plate] is charged.
Teacher: OK.
Greg: And if it's the same material,and it's touching, that whole thing
should be charged,too.
Teacher: Do you think if this [the plate] were plastic, then this [the plastic
straw]would be charged?
Greg: If this [the plate] was provedcharged,and it was plastic.
Teacher: So yourideais that,once anygiven kindof material,like if it's plastic,
everythingthat's plasticthat's touchingit will be charged.
Greg agrees, and I check with Jean,Julie, and Jack,askingeach in turn,"Whatdo

you thinkof that?"Julienods"yes,"andJacksays "Itsoundsgood."Jeanis hesitant,
saying that"It sounds all right,"but she wantsto try an experiment.
Jean: I don't know, could we, try it with the foam [StyrofoamTM]?
...
Chargea foam plate, and then put a foam cup on it.
I tell them "That's a great experiment,"expecting it will disconfirm Greg's

explanation:StyrofoamTM does not conductelectricity,so therewill be no sharing
of charge between the plate and the cup. To help ensure that outcome, I caution
them to be surethe cup is not chargedbeforehand,and I move on to otherstudents.
Later,I ask them what became of theirsame materialidea, and I am takenaback.
Jack answers that they "foundout it worked":The charge on the foam plate did
spreadto the foam cup. In fact, Julie says, they "triedit with anotherone. We put
a [foam] plate on top of another[foam] plate,"and it gave the same result-that
chargemoves from foam to foamjust as it does from aluminumto aluminum.
IStudent names are pseudonyms.

2See AppendixA, Section 4.2.
DISCOVERYLEARNINGAND TEACHING 487
pithballto
detect charge
aluminum
pie plate
FIGURE1 Device for experiment
in Section 4.2. An aluminumpie plate
restson a StyrofoamTM cup,withtwo plastic foil-covered
straws
attached. straw straw
A TENSIONAMONGOBJECTIVES
For science educators interested in the broaderaims of reform, there is often

tension between progressiveobjectives of engaging studentsin their own "scien-
tific inquiry"and traditionalobjectives of "coveringthe content."On one side are
intents that studentslearn to conduct their own investigationsand to make their
own observations-to invent, articulate,and defend their own explanations.On
the otherside arerequirementsthatthey develop an understandingconsistentwith
a particularbody of knowledge-that they arrive at scientists' explanationsfor
the phenomenascientists observe.
Fora teacherin the classroom,the tensionappearsin momentssuch as this. With
respectto theirparticipationin scientific inquiry,the studentsin this excerpthave
done as one mighthope:Greginventedanexplanation,Jeandesignedanexperiment
to test it, and,afterreplicatingtheresults,the studentsformedtheirown conclusion.
But Greg's idea, thatchargewill spreadto objectsof the same material,is incorrect:
Some materials,including aluminum,conductelectricity, and others, such as the
foam of the students'platesandcups, do not. Jean'sidea for an experimentseemed
sound, but they must have done something wrong because what they observed
cannotoccur.
Among researchersand teachers,discussions about such moments inevitably
elicit a similar split of concerns.Watchingthe videotape, some worry that I was
allowing the studentsto misleadthemselves,at the risk of producingor reinforcing
misconceptions;othersworrythatI communicateddissatisfactionwith theirexpla-
nation,at the riskof discouragingtheirparticipation.Some praiseboththe students'
workas experimentalistsandmy havingencouragedthemto pursuetheirown ideas.
Otherscriticize thatthe activity was inauthenticas science and as studentinquiry,
citing a tacitunderstandingthatthe appropriateobservationsandexplanationswere
predetermined.
It is generallydifficult to engage in any conversationabout science education,
whetherwith teachers,administrators,or curriculumdevelopers,withoutencoun-
tering some form of this tension, couched in varioustermsincludingprocess and
content(or product),depthand breadth,and reasoning and answers. The concep-
tualizationsvary somewhat in purposeand in epistemological,psychological, or
488 HAMMER
sociological commitments;in general, they are framedin terms of a distinction

between differentaspectsof knowledgeandreasoningin studentsor scientists.
In this article,I drawa distinctionbetweenteachers'perceptionsand intentions,
specifically between those of traditionalcontent and those of inquiry(Hammer,
1995b).The formerpertainto whatis traditionallyseen as the contentof the course:
the established,intendedbody of knowledge. It is a traditionalcontent-oriented
perception,for example, that the same materialexplanationis incorrect,and a
traditionalcontent-orientedintentionthatstudentsunderstandthat electric charge
moves in some materials(conductors)butnotin others(insulators).Inquirypertains
to the natureand quality of students'participationin exploration,invention,and
discourse.It is an inquiry-orientedperceptionthatthe studentsinventedtheir own
explanationandexperiment,andan inquiry-orientedintentionthatthey understand
this as valid and valuableparticipation.
To emphasize,this is not a distinctionbetweenthe contentof students'knowl-
edge and the processes by which they reason;it is a distinctionbetween different
aspects of teachers'perceptionsand intentions.In choosing the terms to describe
this distinction, I modify content with traditional and avoid the term process,
becauseI do not wantto adopteitherthe notionthattraditionalcontentis appropri-
ately consideredas the content(or substance)of a physics courseor the notion that
contentand process are psychologicallyor epistemologicallydistinct.
For the purposes of this article, I adopt this descriptionof the instructional
tension, which I suggest is both genuine and legitimate:It is legitimatefor me to
want studentsto understandthat some materialsconductelectricityand othersdo
not; it is also legitimate for me to want studentsto explore phenomena,design
experiments,and invent their own explanations.Ultimately, I know, these two
agendasshouldnot conflict;they are both aspectsof the same overallgoal thatthe
studentsdevelop scientific understanding.But what I hope will happenultimately
is of little help in this moment,as I try to decide how to respond.
DISCOVERYLEARNING
Effortsto reformscience education,fromthe level of nationalprojectsto individual

classrooms,devote substantialtime and effortto addressingthis tension. The idea
that"lessis more"motivatesparingtraditionalcontent-orientedobjectives;various
frameworks,such as the lists of "abilitiesnecessaryto do scientific inquiry"in the
NationalScience EducationStandards(NationalResearchCouncil [NRC], 1996),
promoteandorganizeinquiry-orientedobjectives.Withinthe classroom,the coor-
dination of traditionalcontent and inquiry plays out in a variety of ways, from
relativelyminoradjustmentsof traditionalmethodsto wholesale restructuring.
Some approachesentaildesignatingparticularactivitiesas inquiryoriented,with
traditionalcontent-often seen as prerequisiteto student inquiry--covered by
traditionalmeans. Thus, a teachermay lecture and assign problemsto cover the
LEARNING
DISCOVERY ANDTEACHING 489
content and then address inquiry-orientedobjectives through assignments that

requirestudentsto apply what they have learned.Alternatively,the teachermay
promote studentinquirythroughvarious forms of studentprojects(Ruopp, Gal,
Drayton,& Pfister,1993), includingdesigncompetitions(e.g., to buildthe strongest
bridge or tallest tower out of a given set of materials)and school science fairs, in
which, in principle,studentsformulatetheir own questions and design, conduct,
and presenttheirown experiments.These projectsmay be conceptuallytangential
or distinctfromthe traditionalcontentof the course,andteachersmay assign them
with few expectations of progress with respect to that content. For teachers
following such methods,the tension betweeninquiryand traditionalcontentplays
out mainly in decisions aboutthe use of time: how much to devote to inquiry-ori-
ented activities,at the expense of coverage?
Other approachesintegratetraditionalcontent and inquiry-orientedagendas.
Like all popularterms in education,discovery learning has taken on a range of
meanings, but most often it refers to a form of curriculumin which studentsare
exposed to particularquestionsandexperiencesin such a way thatthey "discover"
for themselvesthe intendedconcepts.The student'sinquiryis usually"guided"by
the teacherandthe materials,such as through"Socratic"questions,becauseno one
expects them to arriveon theirown at ideas it took scientistscenturiesto develop.
In a discovery learningapproach,the tension between inquiryand traditional
contentremains,butit takesa differentform.Theissue is no longerhow to distribute
the time betweenprimarilyinquiry-orientedobjectivesandtraditionalcontent-ori-
ented activities but ratherhow quickly to expect or press students to progress
throughthe discoveries. And what if the studentsdo not discover what they are
intendedto discover?How forcefullyandby whatmethodsshouldtheteacherguide
them to the appropriatediscoveries?
In the earlierexcerpt,Greg,Jean,Julie,andJackhave discoveredsomethingthat
I know to be false, using methodsof inquirythatI oughtto support.And so, in this
moment,I am torn.I could help them design and performtheirexperiment"more
carefully,"so that it shows the correctanswer.Perhapsthey will come to accept
that aluminumconducts and foam does not, but perhapsthey will have less of a
sense of theirown access to physical phenomena,independentof my authority.
Some might suggest it was an errorto encouragethemto veer fromthe carefully
designed,prescribedactivities.But studentsstill makeunintendedobservationsand
inferences:During the same period, anothergroup of studentsare following the
directionsin Section4.2, andto my surpriseandconfusion,theirplasticstrawseems
to be conductingelectricity.
Otherswould arguethatthe students'observationsarecloudedby theirprecon-
ceptions, and they should learnto be more objective. But one could make a very
similar claim about my reasoning:I disbelieve the students'evidence in favor of
what I know to be correct.I can inventan explanationfor whatthey have seen, but
my explanation is just that, an invention designed to be consistent with my
490 HAMMER
preconceivednotions. Perhapsit is not entirelytrue that I want them to be more

objective. It seems as thoughpartof my inquiry-orientedagendais thatthey learn
to be appropriatelyprejudicedin conductingtheirexperiments.In this moment,in
this way, thetensionbetweenmy traditionalcontentandinquiry-orientedobjectives
is an intellectualchicken-and-egg:If they do not in some sense alreadyknow what
will happen,they may not design theirexperimentswell enough to see it.
INHERENTUNCERTAINTY
Thatstudentsmay discover,throughlegitimateinquiry,the "wrong"ideas, is now

a familiarmatterof epistemology.Educationalpsychologists(e.g., Hodson, 1988)
and historians and philosophersof science (e.g., Feyerabend, 1988) argue that
scientific truthsare constructed,that they do not reside in the world simply to be
discoveredby those who look carefully. There are educationalimplicationsboth
with respect to objectives, that studentsshould develop appropriatebeliefs about
the natureof science, and with respectto strategiesand expectations,thatteachers
should not assumegood inquirywill lead to correctknowledge.
This familiarepistemologicalpoint should be connectedto what is becoming
a familiarpedagogicalpoint-that teachingis inherentlyuncertain.That teachers
and instructionalmaterials cannot determine what students will discover, for
epistemological reasons, contributes to other uncertainties,of socioeconomic,
physical, psychological, and culturalorigin. Still, as McDonald (1992) warned,
assumptionsandestheticsof certaintyareembeddedin practicesat all levels of the
educationalsystem, from the detailed lesson plans that internteacherspreparein
traditionalprograms,to educationresearchthatevaluatescurriculathroughexperi-
mental and control groups, and to publishers' book fliers touting "classroom
techniquesthatreally work."
These assumptionsof certaintyplay a significantrole in the tension between
studentinquiryand traditionalcontent.The latteralmost inevitablyreemergesas
the bottomline, largelybecauseit affordsa semblanceof certaintyin planningand
assessment.It seems straightforwardfor a teacher,and for students,parents,and
school administrators,to assess progresswith respectto traditionalcontent:How
many chaptershas the class covered? How many exam questions did a student
answer correctly? In contrast, despite educators' views of the importance of
3Thispointis often misinterpretedto supportan untenable,unproductiverelativism.Thatphysicists'

notions of electricity and conductionare constructeddoes not imply that they are arbitrary.To the
contrary,the histories of their constructionrecommendthese notions as distinctive and unusualwith
respect to their usefulness for explaining and predicting phenomenain the physical world. Other
constructs,such as Greg's "same material"account, do not share this distinction:Wires made from
StyrofoamTM would not function.Currentpostmodernesthetics notwithstanding,thereis a substantive
epistemologicalbasis in physics for designatingcertainideas as incorrect.
LEARNING
inquiry-orientedobjectives,in themselvesandas likely prerequisitesfor traditional

content-orientedprogress,ourunderstandingof those objectivesandhow to assess
their achievementremainsvague and uncertain.The problemwith "less is more"
is that,whereasit is quitetangiblein what sense a course is "less"(fewer chapters,
fewer concepts), it is rathermore difficult to discernin what sense it is "more."
The main approachto addressingthis problemhas been to pursue an under-
standing of scientific inquirythat is comparablein quality and reliability to the
knowledge availableaboutphysicalphenomena.Few would suggest this has been
achieved, although educators have often invoked research into the nature of
scientific reasoningand its developmentto define specific inquiry-orientedobjec-
tives, such as in the frameworksnoted earlierof reasoning abilities and process
skills (Gagn6, 1965; NRC, 1996).
The tension between inquiry and traditionalcontent has generally been per-
ceived and addressedagainstan unexamined,backgroundassumptionof certainty.
It is perhapsfor this reason that the role of the teacherin discovery learning is
seldom examined(A. Brown, 1992). My purposein this articleis to examine that
role, focusing in particularon this tension.To thatend,following McDonald(1992)
and others,I will recastthe matteragainsta backgroundassumptionof uncertainty.
This recastingwill not rule out contributionsof researchor of frameworksspeci-
fying inquiry-orientedobjectives,but it will shift the natureof those contributions.
DISCOVERYTEACHING
Views of teaching as uncertainand contingent have been developed in various

accountsof teachersas reflective practitioners(Schon, 1983) engaged in practical
inquiry(Cochran-Smith& Lytle, 1993;Richardson,1994)andimprovisation(Sassi
& Goldsmith,1996). They aremanifestin a growingliteratureof detailed,narrative
accountsof classroompractices,includingthose in science andmathematics(Ball,
1993; Lampert,1989, 1990; Minstrell, 1989; Roth, 1995; Schifter, 1996; Warren
& Rosebery, 1996).
One might describe the instructionalpracticesin these accounts as discovery
teaching. All teaching, like all learning,involves discovery. What distinguishes
these practices is a stance of inquiry wherein teacher discovery plays a central,
essential role in shapingthe substanceand form of the course. Curriculum,in this
sense, is not determinedentirelyin advance;it is largelydiscoveredandemergent.
Ball (1993), for example, recountedan episode from her third-gradeclass that
startedwhen "Seanannouncedthathe hadbeen thinkingthatsix could be bothodd
and even because it was made of 'three twos' " (p. 385). As the teacher, Ball
deliberatedwhether to "introduceto the class the idea that Sean has identified
(discovered)a new*categoryof numbers"and worriedaboutconfusing them with
"nonstandardknowledge" but saw an opportunityto "enhance what kids are
thinking about 'definition' and its role, nature, and purpose" (p. 387). She chose to
492 HAMMER
proceed,drawingcontributionsand argumentsfrom otherstudentsandeventually

coaxing a definition of Sean numbers:"'Sean numbershave an odd numberof
groupsof two.' And, over the course of the next few days, some childrenexplored
patternswith Sean numbers,just as others were investigatingpatternswith even
and odd numbers"(p. 387).
In this way, Sean numberscontributedto the substanceof the course.This was
discovery learning,but it was also discoveryteaching,dependenton Ball's (1993)
discovery of the mathematicsin Sean's announcementand of the opportunityit
presentedto promotethe students'understandingof mathematicalinquiry.It was
also an exampleof a teachernegotiatingthe tensionbetweeninquiryandtraditional
content;to Ball it was a "dilemma"between"respectingchildrenas mathematical
thinkers"and helping them "to acquire particulartools, concepts, and under-
standings"(p. 384).
Lampert's(1989) accountssimilarlydepict her "examining"(p. 235), forming
"conjecturesabout"(p. 238), and "choosingmathematicalrepresentationsthatare
responsive to" (p. 241) her elementarystudents'mathematicalthinking (see also
Lampert,1990). Minstrell(1989) describedhis perceptionsof students'contribu-
tions and his in-class decisions during a discussion about the concept of force,
speakingof the curriculumas evolving andcontingenton the teacher's sense of the
students' "conceptualand rationalneeds" (p. 131). Roth's (1995; Roth & Roy-
choudhury,1993) articles have focused on analyzingstudents' participation,but
his accountsalso exhibit his stanceof inquiryas the teacherin the classroom.
Ball (1993), Lampert(1989, 1990), Minstrell(1989), and Roth (1995; Roth &
Roychoudhury,1993) were writing about their own teaching, as I am here, but
discoveryteachingis by no meansthe inventionor propertyof researcherteachers.
Few full-timeteacherswho assume such a stanceof inquiryin theirworkhave the
time and occasion to makepublic presentations.Some do: Schifter(1996) editeda
collection of essays by mathematicsteachersconcerningtheir inquiry into their
students' and their own mathematicalthinking.LabNet (Ruopp et al., 1993), an
electronic network of teachersinterestedin "projectenhancedscience learning"
includes accountsby those for whom projectsare a primarymeans to develop the
substanceof a course. Teacherperception,judgment,and discovery are centralin
these approaches,as has been depictedby such teachersas DonnaHolmes, Robert
Kitchen,GregLockett(see also Lockett,1996), andKelly Wedding.Otheraccounts
of teacherinquiryare presentedin articlesby researcherswith whom the teachers
collaborate,such as Rosebery's andWarren's(Rosebery,Warren,& Conant,1992;
Warren& Rosebery, 1996) accountsof middle school science classes.
AN OVERVIEW
OF THISARTICLE
Popularappreciationandacademicdiscussionof issues facingteachersoftencenter

on general matterssuch as the challenges of coping with difficult conditions in
urbansettings, culturaland sexual inequities,and discipline and motivation.Per-

haps because these challenges are so great, matters pertaining to intellectual
substance,or content, which are often studied carefully in researchon students'
knowledge and learning,are largely ignored or taken for grantedin researchon
teaching.Importantexceptionsincludeworkcited earlierin elementarymathemat-
ics (Ball, 1993; Lampert, 1989, 1990; Schifter, 1996), in history (Wilson &
Wineburg,1993; Wineburg& Wilson, 1988), and in more generaldiscussions of
pedagogicalcontentknowledge(L. S. Shulman,1987;Wilson,Shulman,& Richert,
1987). Thereis (or should be) a greatdeal of physics in a physics course, and that
substanceis the centralconcernof this article.4
To summarizethis introduction,much of the challenge for teachers lies in
coordinating inquiry and traditionalcontent-orientedobjectives. How teachers
understandand undertakethatcoordinationdependslargely on theirmore general
assumptionsandesthetics.Forthose who expect certaintyandcontrol,at least with
respectto the substanceof instruction,the challenge takes a differentform than it
does for those who expect uncertaintyand adopta stance of inquiry.The purpose
of this articleis to explorethis coordination,takingthe latterview of teaching,from
which it is centrallya matterof teacherperceptionandjudgmentand from which
discovery learningdependson discoveryteaching.
The following section recountsa week from a high school physics course, as
completeanddetailedas is practicable.I intendthisaccountas an authenticexample
(as opposedto a model) of discoverylearningand discoveryteaching-to provide
a context in which to discuss the role of teacherperception,inquiry,andjudgment
in shaping the substanceof learningand instruction.The final section, Teaching
Froma Stanceof Inquiry,suggestsimplicationsfor teachingandteachereducation.
A WEEKFROMA HIGHSCHOOLPHYSICSCOURSE
This coursetook place over the 1992-1993 school yearat a local publichigh school
whereI taughtas a guest. The class met daily, for 42 min, except on Mondayswhen
we had a double period. There were 22 students(11 boys and 11 girls); 16 were
seniors,and6 werejuniors.I videotapedevery meetingfromthe 3rdweek of school
throughApril 1 (except for occasionaltechnicalproblems)andrecordeda detailed
journal immediately after each session. The following account is based on the
4The amount of physics in this article will probably present a problem for some readers. The
appendixesprovideexplanationsof the main ideas and terminology,but it would be strangefor me to
presumethatthese will be sufficient--that readerscan learnphysics by readingexplanations.But I am
not awareof a more adequatesolution. This may be one reasonthatmattersof substanceare not more
generally addressed in research on teaching: It is difficult to do so in a manner accessible to an
interdisciplinaryaudience.
494 HAMMER
TABLE1
Calendarof Class Meetings
February23-26 (Tuesday-Friday) Gettingstartedwith ElectrostaticsActivities

March 1-5 (Monday-Friday) In-classscience-fairprojectpresentations
March8-12 (Monday-Friday) Resumedwork with ElectrostaticsActivities
March 15-17 (Monday-Wednesday) No class
March 18-19 (ThursdayandFriday) Discussion andquiz
March22-31 Continuedwork with ElectrostaticsActivities
videotapes with transcripts,the daily journal, and my reconstructionslater on

viewing videotapesand readingtranscriptsandjournalentries.
I describeroughly2 weeks of classroomactivity,as summarizedin Table 1, with
particularattentionto the week of March8-12. Unlike most of our work over the
year, this unit was based on a set of predesignedand commercially available
curriculummaterials-Electrostatics Activities for Students5by Robert Morse
(1991)-and thus affords reflection on the role of such materials in shaping
classroominteractions.
There are two sections to this account, describingour work in chronological
order.The first section emphasizesteacherinteractionswith studentsworking in
groups, to consider the role of teacherperceptionsandjudgmentswith respect to
particularstudentsand groups in the coordinationof inquiryand traditionalcon-
tent-orientedobjectives.The second sectionemphasizeswhole class discussionsin
orderto considerthe coordinationof these objectives at the level of the evolving
substanceof the unit, or, as I will call it, the emergentcurriculum.
GroupWork:Studentand Teacher Inquiryand Discovery

The coordinationof studentinquiryand traditionalcontentobjectives need not be
understoodas simply a matterof makingdecisions about content,coverage, and
methodor as a uniformdecision for the class as a whole. It can vary dramatically,
depending on what the teacher perceives in particularmoments with particular
students.This sectionconcernsteacherperception,inquiry,andjudgmentregarding
students'work in groupswith discovery learningmaterials.
I begin by describingthe classroomactivity over the 4 days in Februarywhen
we startedwith the materialsand, in greaterdetail, the group work during the
5I came to use these materialswhen I became involved, as a consultantfor LabNet,in a focus group
led by PattyRourkeand GregLockett.This was an experimentin collaborativeinquiryamonga group
of physics teachersconversingby electronic mail aboutour experiencesteaching from a common set
of materials.RourkeandLockettchose Morse's(1991) materials,whichthey felt couldsupportteachers'
transitionto project-basedinstruction.
DISCOVERY
LEARNING
ANDTEACHING 495
meetings on Monday, March 8, and Tuesday, March9, when we resumed work

with materialsaftera week-long hiatusfor science-fairpresentations.I thenreflect
on my perceptionsand intentionsand on their role, from group to group, in the
coordinationof studentinquiryand traditionalcontent.
February23-26: Developinga sense of the task. Electrostatics

Activi-
ties for Students(Morse, 1991) is a set of worksheets(see AppendixA), including
plansfor simpledevices madefrominexpensive,everydaymaterials(e.g., adhesive
tape,disposableplates andcups, plasticstraws,aluminumfoil) andinstructionsfor
usingthemto explorephenomenain electrostatics.We beganworkon Electrostatics
Activities on Tuesday,February23, the first day back after winter vacation.The
first sets of activities had the class using adhesive tape to explore electrostatic
attractionand repulsion(see AppendixB). As usual, the studentschose their own
lab partnersandtables.They workedin pairs,with two pairsat each table,butthere
was often enough interactionbetween pairs at a table to consider them a single
groupof four.
I was disappointedby the students'initial approachto the materials:They were
trying"toget the resultthatthey thoughttheywere 'supposed'to get"(dailyjournal,
February23) and to make theirway throughthe worksheetsratherthanto build an
understanding.Prior to this unit, I had felt that we had establishedpractices of
authenticinquiryandsense making,butnow the studentsseemedto haveregressed,
and I was irritatedby what I saw as cynicism and apathy.
At one point, however, two students(Steve and Bruce) complainedaboutthe
worksheets, telling me in essence that they were unhappybeing asked to make
thingswithoutknowingwhy ("Wedon't even know whatit's for!").Severalothers
had protestedthatthe worksheetswere "redundant," but it was Steve and Bruce's
complaint that prompted me to understandthat, from the students'perspective,they
were doing what I was asking themto do, and some of them were not any happier
aboutit thanI was.
For these students, accustomed to using worksheets in science courses, the
materialsevidentlysignaleda familiarformof activity.I decidedI neededto address
their understandingof the task, ratherthan,for example, theirmotivation.To that
end, I set out to recastthe worksheetsas tools for the studentsto use to supporttheir
learning.I told them to proceed in the worksheetsonly if they did not have any
questions or ideas of their own for things to try, and I encouragedthem to skip
questions they felt were redundantor for some other reason not useful to their
learning.This seemed to have the intendedeffect, perhapsa sign of progressafter
all from the startof the year when it had been much more of a struggleto engage
the studentsin directingtheirown inquiry(Hammer,1995a).
We hadonly TuesdaythroughFridayof thatweek to workon the new materials;
the following week was reserved(by school policy) for in-class presentationsof
science-fairprojects.We returnedto ElectrostaticsActivities on Monday,March8.
496 HAMMER
March8: 'The stand mightbe charged, too." We hadspentthefirsthalf

of Monday'sdoubleperiodfinishingwith anddiscussingscience-fairprojects.I was
not happywith the students'work,for the same reasonthatI had not been pleased
with theirinitial approachto the worksheets:Most followed what they understood
to be the requiredform of a science-fairprojectratherthanengagingin meaningful
inquiry.As with the worksheets,it came out in our conversationthat the students
felt they were doing what they had been told, and they did not find it meaningful
either. We were all disappointedin ourselves:I faulted myself for not keeping
adequatetrackof theirwork,andwe endedthe discussionin a sombermood.
In the second half of the doubleperiod,we returnedto ElectrostaticsActivities.
The mood persisted, but students made progress. Almost everyone worked on
Section 4 (Appendix A), which involved building and experimentingwith an
electrophorus-a device for storingelectric charge.Here it consisted of an alumi-
num pie plate with a StyrofoamTM cup taped to it as a handle or a stand. Most
studentsneeded guidancethroughthe step in Section 4.1C of touchingthe alumi-
num plate with a finger while holding it neara chargedfoam plate.6
Jean, Greg, and Jack had all done well with their projectsand were one of the
few spiritedgroups (Jean's partner,Julie, was absent).Workingin Section 4.2A,
they had attacheda foil-covered strawto the electrophorusplate and chargedthe
electrophorus.Following the directions,they broughtthe foil strawneartheir"pith
ball," in this case a tiny ball of aluminumfoil, and saw that the pith ball was first
attractedto the strawandthen repelledstronglyaway.7Jeancalled out "Idon't get
this!"to summonme to theirtable, andthey showed me what they had seen. Greg
speculatedthat"thestandmightbe charged,too,"referringto the metalstandfrom
which the pith ball was suspendedby a string. Jean asked me, "Wouldn'tit be
something like, you know how they say closed circuits and stuff like that with
electricity?"
I was curiousaboutGreg's idea thatthe standmightbe charged,but I was more
concernedby Jean'squestion,which I saw as a move to deflect the problemaway
from her own thinking.She was one of a few studentswho still, at this point in the
year, often distrustedthe value of students'discussingtheirown ideas. I responded
to Jean,"Idon't know what 'they say.' Whatdo you know from whatyou've been
doing here?"At thatmoment,Ning, sitting at a desk behindGreg,chimed in with
her explanationfor the pith ball's repulsionfrom the electrophorus:that when it
touched the electrophorus,it took on the same electric charge.Greg dismissed it,
however, saying, "Itjust doesn't sound right."He had anotheridea, that the pith
ball might be negative on one side and positive on the other, and drew a picture
similarto thatin Figure2.
6See AppendixB for an explanationof why this step is necessaryfor chargingthe electrophorus.
7See AppendixB for furtherexplanationof the pith ball.
FIGURE 2 Greg's idea about the

chargeon the pith ball.
Greg: Justsay this strawis positive, right,[and]say all this side [of the pith
ball] was negative, and like these came together.
Jean: All right, so this [indicatingthe foil covered straw attachedto the
plate] is positive and that's [indicatingthe pith ball] all negative.
Greg: Well, not-
Jean: On one side.
Greg: Right. Say thatside was all positive.
Jean: So it's neutral[the pith ball].
Greg: Right. So I figuredthis [the pith ball] might have turnedaround,so
thatthese were all positive and these turnedto be negative.
Jean: Oh, I didn't-
Greg: Like, not turned,but, like, because of the way it went, and then that
made it repel.
Teacher: Whatdo you thinkaboutthatJean?
Greg: I'm not sure.It's an idea.
Jean: So, what he's saying is, what he's saying is so it's kind of like a
magnet.On one side it has these poles, and the other-
Greg: Right.
Jack: Yeah.
Teacher: And somehow it slides aroundto its positive side.
Greg: Yeah, right.
Jean: Yeah, that's what he's saying, right.
Teacher: Whatwould make it flip around?
Greg: I don't know.
Jean: I know that's what I don't understand.
Muchof thisthe studentswereintendedto havediscussedin Section4. 1C, which

was designedto focus attentionon the pithball's repulsionandto guide towardthe
idea thatit musthave acquiredthe same chargeas the electrophorus.(Section 4.2A
was designed to help studentsdistinguishbetween a conductor[the foil-covered
straw]and an insulator[the plastic straw].)In fact, I thoughtGreg, Jean,and Jack
had arrivedat that explanation,so I was surprisedthey did not quickly recognize
Ning's interjectionas correct.Perhapsthey felt she was intruding,or perhapsthey
were focusing on the pith ball's initial attraction,which that explanationdid not
address.
498 HAMMER
I was pleased, however, both by Greg's idea and by Jean's attentionand effort
to understandit. It was partiallycorrect:The initiallyneutralpithball does become
polarizedin this way, with positive chargeson one side and negative charges on
the other, and this accountsfor its attractionto the chargedstraw.But Greg was
describingthis chargedistributionas fixed ratherthaninduced:A positive charge
on the strawwould cause, or induce,the distributionon the pith ball by attracting
negativechargeto the nearside of the pith ball andrepellingpositive chargeto the
far side.8Moreover,Greg was not thinkingthat the pith ball could acquirea net
positive chargefrom hittingthe foil-coveredstraw.I saw his idea as the beginning
of a physicist'sunderstanding,butI was notconcernedthathe andhis groupdevelop
it fully here because there would be more opportunities.So I questionedhis idea
on its own grounds,asking what would make the pith ball turn around,without
tryingto guide towardmy explanation.
The questionpromptedGregto returnto his earlieridea thatthe standmight be
charged. He pointed to a bit of corrosion, which he knew, from his nautical
experience, was relatedto electricity.Jean suggested they repeatthe experiment
holdingthe pithball's stringby a handinsteadof tying it to the stand.Gregworried
that"You might be charged,too,"but he thoughtthatrubberwould work,because
"Itblocks electricalcurrent."I left themthere,feeling thatothergroupsneededmy
attentionand pleased that they were coming up with ideas and finding ways to
explore them. (Jackdid not seem involved, but I chose not to press him. He was
generally doing well in the course, and at the time, he was preoccupiedwith his
science-fairproject,which he was revisingandimprovingto presentat the school's
fair laterin the week.) At the end of class, they told me they had tied the pith ball
to the rubbercasing of a powercordfromthe room's overheadprojector.They had
obtainedthe same results, so they ruled out chargein the stand as an explanation
for the phenomenon.
Theirconclusionwas progresstowardtheunderstanding I wantedthemto develop,
becauseitruledoutamisleadingexplanation.Thereasoningandexperimentationthat
led themto this explanation,on the otherhand,were in variousways misleadingin
themselves:Rubberandfoam arebothinsulators.They can bothhave charge;what
neithercan do is conductcharge.'Nevertheless,based on what they knew and had
experienced,I thoughttheywerebeingcreative,resourceful,andscientificin design-
ing an experiment.I remainedconcernedaboutmaintainingtheirstanceof inquiry,
afterthe class's initialfill-in-the-blanksapproachto the activities,andaboutJeanin
particular,who seemedeverreadyto deferto what"they"(orI) mightsay.Moreover,
as with the idea of inducedpolarization,therewould be manyfurtheropportunities
for themto distinguishconductorsfrominsulatorsandchargefromcurrent.I chose
simplyto complimentthem:"Goodexperiment.Thatwas great."
8See AppendixB for furtherexplanationof inducedpolarization.

9Corrosionis caused by electricalcurrentand not by the presenceof charge.
Elsewherein the class, Sean had not begun to work on the activities,and I lent
him my set of worksheetsratherthanallow him to retrievehis from his car. Other
studentsI mentionedin my journalthatday were Ning, Wei, Liu, andJoannewho,
working on Section 4.1C, had found the explanationNing suggested to Greg's
group: that the pith ball repelled because it picked up the same charge as the
electrophorusplate. But they had also seen, at least once, the pith ball repel and
then suddenly attractagain, clinging a second time to the electrophorus.Their
explanationdid not account for that behavior,and they asked me for help. I was
very pleased by theirwork,both becausethey had arrivedat and seemed confident
in the "correct"explanationandbecausethey were workingto makesense of some
anomalousbehaviorthey had observed.They triedto reproduceit, and I triedwith
them to come up with ideas for what might have happened.To guide them toward
what I felt was probablythe reasonfor what they had seen, I asked if the pith ball
might have hit somethingon its quick repulsionfrom the electrophorus.Wei told
me he thoughtit did hit a metal standnearby.When I askedthem what hittingthe
standmight do, Joanneand Wei both suggestedit might change the chargeon the
pith ball, and we decided thatthis solved the puzzle.
March9: The "samematerial"explanation. The class was much more

lively on Tuesday,with a nice feeling of engagementandproductivity.Gregcalled
me over as soon as the periodbeganto say he hadfound an explanationfor the pith
ball's behaviorin our long-forgottentextbook's"? accountof inducedpolarization.
I was impressedandpleasantlysurprised,mainlyby his initiative:Gregwas one of
the betterstudentsin the class with respectto his intuitionsfor physics, but he was
not one of the betterstudentsat getting work done outside class.
At the same time, I was put off balanceby this unexpectedvoice of authority.I
asked Jean, Jack, and Julie if the explanationmade sense, and they nodded too
quickly thatit did. I was not so much concernedthatthey genuinely understoodit
at this point. What worriedme was thatthe "rightanswer"from the textbookhad
stoppedthem from thinkingfor themselves.At the moment,however, I could not
think of any graceful way to addressthat worry, and other studentswere looking
for my attention,so I simply congratulatedGreg for his initiative.
Later in the period, working in Section 4.2, that group arrivedat their "same
material"explanationrecountedat the opening of this article.They had invented,
designed experiments to test, and confirmed an explanation by which charge
conducts from foam to foam. I was torn, both over how to assess what they had
done and over how to proceed.With respectto traditionalcontent,assessmentwas
straightforward-their account was false-but I was unsure how to assess it as
inquiry.The explanationwas theirown invention,and it was consistentwith some
101had not assignedanythingfromthe textbooksince Novemberbecause I felt it was not

helpful for
these students(Hammer,1995a).
500 HAMMER
of what they had observedin the lab, but it was not consistentwith what I thought
they must have known from common experience:thatmetal conductselectricity.
I had otherconcernsas well: Greg and Jeanwere doing all the work. Jackwas
still mostly uninvolved, and Julie, whose work in the course went throughcycles
of excellence and withdrawal,was in a withdrawalcycle. I triedto draw them in,
directingquestionstheirway, with modest success, but I felt therewas little else I
could do. I trustedJackwouldreengageafterthe school science fair,andI hadbeen
trying for most of the year to understandand influence the swings in Julie's
participation.
Watching their experiment,I saw that they were holding the chargedplate in
such a way thatit was close enough to the pith ball to affect it directly,whetheror
not the cup acquireda charge.I chose to intervene,as I describedafterclass in my
journal:
I said, "Well what if I put the cup over here, so thatit's just touchingon the
edge and I can be sure that plate's charge doesn't have an effect." I was a
little uncomfortablein my interactionwith them because it really felt [as
though it was implicit that] I knew the right answer, and I was trying to
manipulatethem to do that experimentthat gets them the right answer. ...
I'm not sure I did thatwell. (dailyjournal,March9)
In this way, I helpedthemreconstructthe experimentto give the appropriateresult,

but I was uncomfortable,largelybecause of my sense of the differentneeds of the
differentstudents.For Jeanin particular,I worriedmy interventionwouldcorrobo-
ratewhatshe suspectedall along-that, in the end, this was about"gettingthe right
answer,"and all of this explorationwas a kind of sham.
I was not so tornat othertables.Nancy, Susan, Bruce, and Steve, also working
on Section 4.2, had found a plastic strawthatappearedto conductelectricity.
Teacher: Do it again. [watching]That's prettyweird.It still does it.

Nancy: It's insidethe straw,that's whatI think.It's comingthroughthe straw.
Teacher: It's coming throughthe straw [laughs].Well, you got what you got.
That's prettycool.
Bruce: [obviouslypleased]We weren't supposedto get that,right?
I answeredBruceby saying thatthis was not whatI hadseen when I triedit. Nancy
speculatedthatit might have somethingto do with whetherthe strawhas its ends
tapedclosed; Susansuggestedthat,if the ends areclosed, "thechargecan't leave,"
perhapspicturingchargefilling the interiorof the closed straw.Steve thoughtthat
the strawitself was somehow "different."Like Ning's groupthe day before, they
knew whatthey were "supposedto get,"butthey were tryingneverthelessto make
sense of what they got.
LEARNING
At first, I thoughtNancy was joking aboutcharge"comingthroughthe straw,"

partly from her tone of voice but probablyalso because, to me, the shape of the
straw was obviously irrelevant.When I returnedto check on their progresslater,
they were still discussingthe idea, having exploredit further.
Nancy: The straw was closed up, and nobody else's was; it's all open. We
left the strawopen, and now it doesn't work.
Steve: It's also a differentstraw.
Nancy: It's also a differentstraw.
Teacher: So why does [leaving the strawopen] make a difference?
Nancy: I don't know.
Susan: Because things can't get out. The chargecan't leave.
They trieda series of otherstrawsand consultedwith othergroups,but they could

not find or produceanotherconductingplastic straw.I suggestedthe strangestraw
might have some kind of residue in it, but, I said, I did not know why it was
conducting.
I had little to say aboutthis interactionin my journal.All I noted was thatthey
had found a conductingplastic strawthatI had seen with my own eyes and could
not explain. Frommy interactionswith the studentson the videotapeand from the
lack of mention in my journal, I did not seem to be concernedabout Nancy and
Susan's "closedends"line of reasoning.PerhapsI expectedthemto dropit on their
own.
At the next table, Ning, Liu, and Wei were confidentthat the pith ball repelled
from the electrophorusbecause it picked up the same charge.Perhapsto confirm
theirexplanationor perhapsjust "playing,"theytriedto detectthe pithball's charge
with a foil-leaf electroscope (anotherdevice to detect charge, which I had made
available).To their surprise,the electroscopedid not indicatea chargeon the pith
ball, andthey were tryingto understandwhy. When I checkedwith them later,they
had several ideas, all consistent with their previous account of the pith ball's
repulsion,includingWei's thoughtthat "the charge is not significantenough"to
affect the electroscope,which was the essence of my own explanation.(Muchmore
could be said about why the charge is so small.) I told them I thought they had
several reasonable possibilities, was happy to see them trying to reconcile the
discrepancy,andwas not concernedthatthey arriveat whatI consideredthe correct
explanation.
Scott and Sean were startingSection 1, well behind everyone else. They were
both very capable,with class contributionsthatwere often remarkable,but neither
kept up with the work,largelybecausethey both held nearlyfull-timejobs outside
school. I listened in on Ricky and Tim, who were working on Section 4.1. They
were both juniors, rarely contributedto class discussions, and often had trouble
staying on task in groups,but they seemed to be doing well with these activities.I
502 HAMMER
did not spend much time with Penny and Camille either, who also seemed to be
workingwell.
Mona and Amelia were working at the same table as Harryand Andy. Mona
explained,when I asked,thatthe pithball is repelledbecauseit picks up the charge
of the electrophorus.She was almost always passive and uninvolved, and I was
very pleased to see her engaged and apparentlygaining insight into the physics.
Had it been Amelia, one of the most active participants,I probablywould have
remainedneutral,but I told Mona "Wow,that'sgreat!"andgave her a "highfive."
Later,Amelia called me over to ask aboutthe questionin Section 4.2C: "How
did the foil-coveredstrawget charged?How did the pith ball get charged?How is
this different from the way that the tapes and foam got charged?"(Tapes here
referredto the activities of Section 2, in which the students charged pieces of
transparenttape by peeling them from surfacesand from each other.)Amelia had
the idea that"Therewasn't any chargeyet," but for the foil-coveredstrawand the
pith ball "Youjust transferredchargethatalreadyexisted; [for the foam] you have
to form a charge."It was a very good answer,makingsubstantialprogresstoward
the traditionalcontent I (and the worksheet) intended. Andy and Harry were
skeptical,and Amelia tried to convince them. I tried to help her explain her idea,
reiteratingherexplanation,butI pointedto whatI thoughtwas still missing:figuring
out "how do you form the charge."That,I told them, would be homeworkfor the
next day.
After class, Amelia approachedme with an idea for an answerto thatquestion,
recountedlaterwhen the narrativeresumes.Here,I pauseto reflect on my percep-
tion andjudgmentduringthese classes, fromstudentto studentandgroupto group.
TeacherPerceptionandJudgment
The tension between inquiry and traditionalcontent is generally reckoned as a
matterof curriculum,defined in terms of materialsand methods and addressed
throughdecisions such as thatto use the ElectrostaticsActivities. These decisions
areimportant,andthey do muchto framethe substanceof a course,butthey do not
determinethe flow of learningandinstruction.It remainsfor the teacherto discover
how studentsengage the materialsand whatthey might accomplish.
Thus, the studentsin these classes did not always interpretthe instructionsand
questions as intended,and even when they did, they did not always arriveat the
intendedanswers.The worksheetswere not designedto coax studentsinto compla-
cency, but, for these students,they seemed at the outset to have that effect. My
response was to tell the studentsto use theirjudgment about when and how to
proceed throughthe worksheets.That stirrednew uncertainties,as the students
digressedfrom the prescribedactivitiesto pursuetheirown questionsand experi-
ments, including, over these 2 days, suspendinga pith ball from a rubber-cased
power cord, touchinga pith ball to an electroscope,and investigatingthe anomaly

of a conductingplastic straw.
All teachinginvolves such perceptionsand discoveries, some simple and mun-
dane(they need help with the step in Section4.1C) andsome moresubstantial(they
have not distinguishedthe concepts of charge and current);some concerningthe
class as a whole (they have regressedto filling in the blanks), some concerning
particulargroups(Greg,Jean,andJackthinkthe standmightbe charged),andsome
concerningindividualstudents(it was Mona who gave the explanation).
Froma view of teachingas discovery,theclass is an arenaforteacherexploration
of students'participation,knowledge,andreasoning,and whatthe teacherfinds in
that explorationinformsher or his sense of the objectives and how they might be
achieved.Coordinatingtraditionalcontentandstudentinquiryis not simplya matter
of reducingthe formerandacceptingthe latter;it is a matterof discerningstudents'
strengths and needs, and these may vary considerably,in specific instructional
moments, from student to student and group to group. In this way, successful
instructiondependson successful perceptionandjudgment.
Workingwith Greg, Jean,Julie, and Jack,for example, I was tornover how to
proceed,reluctantto sharewith themmy opinionof their"samematerial"idea and
experiments.But I had no qualms about telling Nancy, Steve, Bruce, and Susan
what I thought about their conducting plastic straw. The difference was in my
perceptionsof their work. Greg's group, as a group, seemed inclined to accept a
voice of authoritywithoutfurtherquestionratherthanto use it as a basis fromwhich
to reevaluate and reconstructtheir understanding.Nancy's group, in contrast,
seemed inclined towarda sense-makingapproach,and I was not worriedthat my
input would interfere.At the same time, Greg's group seemed more at risk of
arriving at an understandinginconsistent with my traditionalcontent-oriented
agenda. They had concluded that their "same material"explanationwas correct,
that a StyrofoamTM object will conduct to other StyrofoamTM objects, whereas
Nancy's group was skeptical of their conductingstraw.
Perceiving different strengthsand needs, my agenda shifted. Nancy's group
seemed establishedin a stanceof sense making,andI felt in a positionto challenge
them further,with respectto traditionalcontentas well as inquiry,towardcoherent
argumentationandreasoning.Greg'sgroupdid not, andI took it as a centralagenda,
workingwith them, to promotesuch a stance.
Instructiongoes awry, on this view, not because it fails to proceed as planned
butbecausethe instructoreithermisperceivesthestudents'participationor is unable
to respondto what she or he does perceive.Moreover,all instructiongoes awry in
at least some respect.First,thereis simply too muchat any momentto perceive, let
alone to address.It would not have been possible, for example, for me to focus
simultaneously on Julie's apathy, Jack's distraction,Jean's epistemology, and
Greg's conceptualunderstanding,to consider only a single group. Second, some
of what there is to see, in practice if not in principle, is beyond the teacher's
504 HAMMER
influence. I felt I understood why Scott and Sean did so little work for the
course-their 30-hr after-schooljobs-but I also felt there was little I could do to
change the situation.
Third, what shapes a teacher's intentions and interventions is not what is
happening but what the teacher perceives is happening, and what the teacher
perceives depends as much on the teacher's knowledge, beliefs, and attitudesas
it does on the classroom events. Thus, this account describes my perceptions as
the teacher. I cannot suggest they are reliably accurate;certainly they were not
complete. Otherswatching the same studentsperceive their work differently.
At the time, for example, I assumedstudentswould think of conductivityas a
propertyof the material(metal or plastic), and it did not occur to me they might
focus on the shape. So I thoughtNancy was joking when she talkedaboutwhether
the ends of the strawwere open or closed. In retrospect,consideringwhat she had
seen and experienced,her idea was perfectly reasonable.Similarly,I was taken
aback by Greg's "same material"reasoning. At the time, as I noted earlier, it
troubledme that the studentswere willing to abandontheir everydayknowledge
thatmetalsconduct.Reflectingon the interactionas I preparethis article,I question
that perception:Perhaps it was not that they were abandoningtheir everyday
knowledge but that they were not thinkingof this as conduction.Examiningthe
transcript,I now discover, they described charge as spreading and shared and
distributedaroundthe StyrofoamTM, but never as conducted. Now that I have
discoveredthese possibilities, I may be betterequippedto recognize them should
they come up in my teachingagain.
Class Discussions:The "HAM"

Theoryand the
MarinoPhenomenon
The previoussection concernedteacherperceptionsand intentionswith respectto

particularstudentsworkingin the course;this section concernsthe evolutionof the
course. Often whata teacherobserveswhile workingwith particularstudentsis, in
the teacher's judgment,worththe attentionof the class as a whole, andthe teacher
may choose to elevate thatquestionor idea to the level of curriculum.In this sense,
the curriculum,thatis the substanceof the course,emergesfromstudentandteacher
inquiryand discovery.
In this section, I returnto the narrativeof the classroomactivities, this time to
consider the coordinationof traditionalcontentand studentinquiryat the level of
the emergentcurriculum.I begin again with an account of the classroom activ-
ity-here divided day by day for March10, 11, 12, 18, and 19-focusing on what
became two key pieces of our curriculum:the HAM theory and the Marino
phenomenon.I then reflect on the role of teacherperceptionandjudgmentin that
evolution.
March10:Amelia'sexplanation. Amelia approachedme after class on

Tuesdayto tell me thatshe hadan answerto the questionof how a chargeis formed
in peeling aparttwo pieces of tape (see AppendixB). Her idea was thatpeeling the
tapes apartdid not "form"chargebut "separated"it. She explainedthat the tapes
had both positive and negative charges at the outset but that they "canceledeach
otherout."Peelingthe tapesapart,she said,separatedpositive andnegativecharges,
leaving two oppositelychargedpieces of tape,as shown in Figure3. This was both
what the worksheetquestionwas designed to elicit and much of the explanationI
wanted studentseventuallyto understand.I told her we would be discussing this
topic the next day as a class, and she shouldbe sure to presenther idea.
Amelia presentedher idea early in our discussionthe next day. Camille, whose
participationin the course was sporadic,was noddingas Amelia spoke, and I took
the opportunityto draw her in as an early supporterof an account we would
eventuallyvalidateas "whatphysicists think."
Teacher: Camille, [you seem to think]that's an importantpoint.

Camille: When the tapes [are]together,they cancel; all of the chargescancel;
you can't tell if it has any charge.When you rip them apartit only
makes an act of-
Amelia: You separatethe charges.
Camille: It bringsthe chargeout, like.
Harryasked Amelia why she thought the tape could not hold both kinds of
charge, and Scott asked why the charges would cancel if the tapes had the same
charge,evidently not understandingAmelia's idea. Amelia reiteratedher explana-
tion, with helpfromSusan.Pennyaskedwhy thetapeswouldhavedifferentcharges
"if they arethe samematerial,"butAmeliadid not seem to understandherquestion.
Ning, who was also taking chemistry,connected Amelia's idea to the atomic
model of a positive nucleuswith an equal numberof negativelychargedelectrons.
FIGURE 3 Schematic depiction of

Amelia's explanation.On the left, the
two pieces of tape are stuck together,
with no net charge. Peeling the pair
apartseparatespositive and negative
charges.
506 HAMMER
Removing or adding an electron, she said, "makesthe atom become positively

chargedornegativelycharged."Harrystill felt that,by this explanation,"Youcreate
the charge,"and thatwhen an objectis neutral"There'sno charge."I was not sure
whetherhe was being uncharacteristically obtuse, arguinga point of semantics,or
but
simplybeing contrary, Susan,Nancy, and Ning respondedthat"There'sno total
charge," that the chargesare therebut "together,"andHarrysurrenderedthe point.
I drew a diagramof Amelia's idea on the board, similar to that in Figure 3,
identifiedit as "a model for how the tapes get charged,"and asked the studentsto
critiqueit and considerits implicationsfor otherphenomenathey had seen:
Teacher: Is that a good model; is there a problem with it? ... If this is what
happenswith a pairof tapes,thenwhathappenswhen I takethe rabbit
fur and I rubthe foam plate?
Joannebuilt on Ning's idea with somethingshe rememberedfrom chemistry:
Joanne: Some objects, like, tend to give up electronsmore easily thanother

objects, and anotherobject is going to take them more easily. You
know what I mean?
Teacher: How do you know that?
Joanne: Chemistry.You know what I mean? .
Amelia: That'swhy it dependson whatkind of materialyou use to whatkind
of chargeyou get.
This was furtherprogresstowardthe understandingthat the worksheetswere

designed to promote:The structureof some substancesleaves room for an extra
electron or two, whereas the structureof other substancestends to crowd out
electrons. Rubbing a piece of rabbitfur against a StyrofoamTM plate lets over-
crowded electrons in the fur move into the available spaces in the polystyreneof
the plate, leaving the fur with more protonsthanelectronsand the plate with more
electronsthanprotons.I was delightednot only by this progressbutalso by theway
the ideas were emergingand from whom. Joanneand Camille, in particular,were
seldom principal protagonistsin the development of substance, and although
Amelia often spoke in class, her views had seldom survivedscrutiny.
With the studentstaking care of the traditionalcontent, I focused on drawing
them into reasoningpracticesof assessingtheiraccountfor its implicationsin other
situations. As part of that, I tried to avoid closure with respect to the theory I
consideredcorrect.For the remainderof the period, I enjoined them to consider
what the model would predict("So if that's right, what would happenif you rub
two foam plates together?Shouldyou be able to get a chargeon them?"),whether
it agreedwith everythingwe alreadyknew and whethertherewere any reasonable
alternativeexplanations.Of course,my intentionswere not purelyinquiryoriented
LEARNING
because I hoped and expected this would promptthe studentsto explore the ideas
more thoroughlyand develop a more robustunderstanding.
We decidedit shouldnot be possible to chargetwo foam platesby rubbingthem
together,because, as Amelia said, "Theyhave the same tendencyof attractingor
repelling"electrons.We also decided the model would predictthat the chargeon
rabbitfur should be opposite the charge on the foam plate, after they are rubbed
together,and we discussed how these predictionscould serve as empiricaltests of
the model.
To resolve one apparentdiscrepancyand to avoid a confusion that might have
underminedthis progress,I volunteeredan answerto the questionthatPenny had
asked but we had never addressed:Why would peeling two pieces of tape apart
give them differentcharges, if they are the same material?Perhaps,I suggested,
there are two materialsinvolved, glue and plastic, because the two pieces of tape
were stuck togetherwith the sticky side of one in contactwith the non-stickyside
of the other.
Ning reported,as counterevidenceto the model, thatshe hadchargedtwo pieces
of rabbitfurby rubbingthemtogether.AmeliaandJoannerespondedthatthe pieces
of fur also had two sides, so Ning might have been rubbingdifferentmaterials.I
commentedthatAmelia and Joannewere behaving"liketruescientists,"tryingto
explainaway Ning's counterevidenceto keep theirmodel standing,andI suggested
thatsomeone shouldtryto replicateNing's results.Theonly alternativeexplanation
anyone could think of this day was thatthe chargefrom rubbingmight be caused
by heat generatedby the friction,in which case it shouldbe possible to chargetwo
foam plates by rubbing them together. The students rejected that explanation
quicklybecauseit wouldmeana hotfryingpanshouldshow a strongelectriccharge.
March11: Camille'sdiscovery. Severalstudentswere absentThursday,

includingNing, Steve, Jean,and Jack, who were dismissed to set up theirpresen-
tations for Friday's school science fair. The rest of the class worked in groups:
Nancy, Susan, Greg, Bruce, and Mona workedtogethertesting the predictionsof
the model from the previousday. The "samematerial"explanationcame up again
in two other groups. (Greg, however, denied ever having the idea.) Camille
mentioned it briefly but dismissed it immediatelyon hearingJoanne talk about
conductors and insulators. ("She's right, I know she's right.") Ricky and Tim
disconfirmedit with an experimentusing two plastic straws,one chargedand the
other neutral,and Ricky revised his explanationto say, "One's a metal; it's a
conductor,and the otherone isn't," which Tim said he alreadyknew.
Two groups,Andy,Liu, andWei andJoanne,Camille,andPenny,wereconfused
about the question in Section 4.4 asking for cartoon-likediagramsof how they
understoodthe motion of chargein the electrophorus.They were, instead,simply
sketchingtheir observations.I tried to explain what the question was asking, but
508 HAMMER
neutral
electrophorus touch with finger
chargedStyrofoamM andthe foam
plate plate lifts
I I I
FIGURE 4 The Marinophenomenon.Hold a neutralelectrophorusby its foam cup handle,

and bring it close to a chargedfoam plate. Touch the electrophorusplate, and the foam plate
lifts from the table.
eitherthey did not understandthe natureof the task,or they did not see it as useful.
I became concernedthatourconversationwas shiftingfrom the substanceof their
understandingof thephysicalmechanismto the requiredformof response.I thought
drawing the diagramswould be helpful to their understandingand inquiry,but,
somewhattorn,I allowed thatthey were entitledto skip questionsthey did not feel
were useful.
The most consequentialevent of the day was Camille's discovery. In charging
an electrophorus,she noticedthatif she held it very close to the chargedfoam plate,
when she touched the electrophoruswith her finger the foam plate would lift off
the table, as shown in Figure4. PennyandJoannewere skeptical,but Camillewas
adamant.She called me and otherstudentsto theirtableto see it. With me holding
the electrophorus,she demonstratedthe effect severaltimes, convincing us it was
real. Camille was very excited and was as annoyed as I that the event was not
recorded on videotape ("Sure, the day I make this great discovery, and the
videocamera wasn't even on!"). Using her last name, I dubbed it the Marino
phenomenon.
This was one of the discoveries that the worksheetsintended.A question in
Section4. 1Caskedstudentsto noticethe attractiveforcebetweenthe electrophorus
andthe foam plate,butit was not untillaterin the worksheetsthatthe studentswere
intendedto explain why this happens.Planningfor class the next day, I decided to
focus on this as a topic of conversation.I thoughtit could serve in severalways: It
was anotheropportunityto show the studentsthattheirdiscoveriesmattered,it was
an exampleof a phenomenologicalcontributionto scientificprogress,and it was a
phenomenonthat could point us towardthe notions of induced polarizationand
chargingby induction.
March12: The Marinophenomenonand the HAMtheory. We hadonly

half of the periodfor discussion on Fridaybecause the class was to be releasedto
allow studentsto visit the school science fair.We spent a momentto hearreports
fromstudentswho hadbuiltelectroscopesfromsodacans andfoil, using plansfrom
the worksheets I had assigned as homework.Several had charged their electro-

scopes by rubbing their feet on the carpet, combing their hair, or touching a
television screen.
We then turnedto the Marino phenomenon.I demonstratedit, after Camille
declined,andaskedfor explanations.Most of the discussionconcernedwhetherthe
electrophorusplate alreadyhad a chargebefore I touchedit with my finger. Bruce
had an idea for a test: He asked me to neutralizethe electrophorusand press it
againstthe chargedfoam plate.We saw a weak attraction,not strongenough to lift
the foam plate, but we were undecidedwhat thatimplied.
With little time remaining,I asked Amelia, Ning, and Joanneto review their
respectivecontributionsto the chargeseparationmodel. Amelia's notion was that
charge is not createdbut separated,Ning's was that the charges involved are the
positive nuclei and negative electrons that they had learnedmake up atoms, and
Joanne'swas thatdifferentmaterialshave differenttendenciesto acceptor give up
electrons. We dubbedthese ideas the HAM theory, using the first letters of their
last names,andstudentswho hadtestedits predictionsreportedtentativeconfirma-
tion. I then announcedtherewould be a quiz the following week andallowed those
who were interestedto go to the science fair.About half of the class chose to stay,
andthey workedandplayedin variousways:Ricky experimentedwithhis soda-can
electroscope;Sean andScott triedto catchup;JeanandAmelia suspendeda neutral
electrophorusand a chargedfoam plate by strings to find a weak attractionthat
became strongerwhen they touchedthe electrophorus.
March18:A HAMexplanationof the Marinophenomenonand some

alternatives. We did not meet againuntilThursday,March18, becauseof snow
days and a holiday.Thatclass we intendedto spendreviewing for the quiz, which
would be on Friday;as it happened,we spent most of it talking aboutthe Marino
phenomenon.
Amelia,Ning, andJoannepresentedexplanationsin line with theirHAMtheory.
Ning's versionwas the most detailedandclosest to a physicist's: The electrophorus
startsout neutral,that is, with an equal amountof positive and negative charge.
When it is nearthe negativelychargedfoam, negativechargeis repelledtowardthe
top of the electrophorus,andpositive chargeis attractedto the bottom.Touchinga
finger to the top of the electrophorus,Ning explained,would providea way for the
repelled negative chargesto leave the plate, leaving behind a net positive charge.
Having a positive charge, the electrophoruswould attractthe negatively charged
foam plate more strongly,lifting it off the table."
"Ning was carefulto specify thatthe negativecharges(electrons)aremobile,andthe positivecharges

(atomic nuclei) are not. This was somethingthe rest of the class had not established,and at this point,
we still spoke generallyof negative or positive chargesmoving.
510 HAMMER
Severalstudentsdisagreedwith this explanation.Steve, Susan,Bruce,andSean

all raisedquestionsaboutthe model,contestingthe idea thatthe electrophorusplate
could be chargedone way on top and anotherway on the bottom.They seemed to
thinkof chargeas a propertyof the objectas a whole, so they were troubledby an
accountof differentpartsof the electrophorushaving differentcharges. In retro-
spect, this was consistentwith some of whatI hadheardfromstudentsduringgroup
work, includingaroundthe "samematerial"explanationof chargesharing.
Standingat the front of the room, I triedvariousexperimentsthatthe students
suggested, and along the way, we happenedon anothervisually impressivephe-
nomenon.Steve hadsuggestedan experimentthatrequiredus to startwith a neutral
electrophorus.The electrophorusI was using had a foil-covered straw attached,
and,to verify thatit was neutral,I touchedthe foil strawto a pith ball. The pith ball
did not respond,confirmingthatthe electrophoruswas neutral.Before proceeding
with Steve's experiment,however,I showedthatI could makethe pithball respond
to the strawby bringinga chargedfoam plateclose to the bottomof the electropho-
rus plate, as shown in Figure5: When I broughtthe chargedfoam nearthe bottom
of the electrophorusandtouchedthe foil strawto the pithball, the pithball repelled
away. But, when I moved the foam plate away, the pith ball settled back. I moved
the foam plate nearand away severaltimes, and we watchedthe pith ball respond
in synch.
To the HAM authorsand adherents,this behavior was consistent with their
accountof the Marinophenomenon:Broughtclose, the negatively chargedfoam
plateattractspositive chargeto the bottomof the electrophorusandrepelsnegative
chargeto the top andonto the foil-coveredstraw.The pith ball, touchingthe straw,
picks up a small negative charge itself and repels away. Moving the foam plate
away allows the charge on the electrophorusto distributeevenly again, so that
there is no longer a negative charge on the straw, and the pith ball is no longer
repelled.
To Steve and the others, the repulsion of the pith ball suggested that the
electrophorusplatewas becomingchargedoractingas a conduitof charge,by virtue
of the proximityof the foam plate. I felt that"Itwas nice [that]it was Steve"(daily
journal, March 18) who took the lead in arguing this view, which we would
eventuallydecide was incorrect,because most of the class consideredhim the top
student.Steve thoughtthatthe chargefrom the foam plate would "kindalike pass
through"the electrophorusto affect the pith ball, "butit doesn't stay [there],so
when you move the foam away, it's not thereanymore.But when you touchit, you
allow it to kindalike stick."
Susan had it as a "spark"jumping between the two plates the way, she said,
charge can "jump"across the "small space to anothernerve"in a synapse. Sean
called it a "current,"apparently, as had Greg, trying to connect what was
happening to what he knew about a "complete circuit." Bruce used the words
DISCOVERY
LEARNING
ANDTEACHING 511
Neutral electrophoruswith
foil-coveredstraw,touchinga
pith ball.
Charged foam plate.
Bring the charged foam plate close to the

electrophorus,and the pith ball repels
away fromthe foil-coveredstraw.
Removethe foam plate,and the

repulsionstops.
FIGURE5 Thephenomenon
we discovered
in classon March18.
aura andforce field. I was pleasedthese studentswere looking for connectionsand

ideas from otherphenomena,but I was dauntedby the very differentnotions they
were expressing aboutchargeand current.At the same time, I wonderedwhether
some of whatthey were saying mightserve as seeds for the physicist's conceptsof
an electric field or an electric potential.
We drewdepictionsof thecompetingaccountson the blackboard,with theHAM
charge-separationmodel on the left and the charging-by-proximitymodel on the
512 HAMMER
right.Towardthe end of the period,the studentsidentifieda seriousproblemwith

the latter:If the foam platewas somehowsharingits chargewith the electrophorus,
the two plates would have the same charge and should repel each other, but we
knew, from the Marino phenomenonand from Jean and Amelia's experiments
suspendingplates by strings,thatthey attract.
Ning had an idea for an experiment that she felt could confirm the HAM
account:Proceed as usual in charging the electrophorus,but instead of touching
it with my finger on the top, touch it on the bottom. Because the charge on the
bottom of the electrophorus is the opposite of the charge on the top, she
reasoned, touching the electrophorus on the bottom should have the opposite
effect from touching it on the top. Whereastouching it on the top would provide
an escape route for the negative charge repelled there, touching the bottom
should provide an entrancefor more negative charge to come onto the electro-
phorus, attractedby the positive charge on the bottom of the plate. Then the
electrophoruswould have a net negative charge, the same as the foam, and the
two plates should repel.
I was both impressed by Ning's reasoning and worried that the outcome of
her experimentwould have the effect of disproving her correct explanationof
charge induction. Her reasoning was clear and compelling, which was a virtue
and a problem, because I doubted the experiment would come out as she
predicted. I did not have the moment I needed to pin down for myself why I
doubted her prediction or, more important,to figure out whether the students
would be able to reconcile this counterevidence,given what they knew at the
time.
We proceededwith the experiment,despite my hesitancy, and the plates still
attracted,against Ning's prediction. Several students, especially Amelia, com-
plainedthatI had not touchedthe plateon the bottom,thatmy fingerswere not thin
enough to reachunderneaththe electrophorus,becauseit was so close to the foam.
I commentedthat we would need to thinkfurtheraboutthis experimentand that
we had not resolved the debatebetween the HAM and proximityexplanations.As
class ended, I decided and alertedthe studentsthatone questionon the quiz would
ask them to'defenda position in this debate.
After class, I settled my own understandingof Ning's experiment, but my
reasoningdependedon ideas we had not yet developed in class. It took me longer
to constructa line of reasoning based only on what the students had seen and
discussed.12
12The following week, Steve, Nancy, andAmelia modifiedNing's experiment.They cut a small hole
in the centerof the foam plate and reachedup throughit to touch the bottomof the electrophorus.The
resultswere the same as we foundin class: Whetherthey touchedthe electrophoruson the top or on the
bottom,it woundup with a positivecharge.Amelia felt this disprovedherexplanation;Steve andNancy
were unsure.I offered them my explanationof why the result was not inconsistent.
March 19: The quiz. There were three essay questions on the quiz. Two
were fairly short, asking studentsto explain two demonstrationsthat I presented
duringthe quiz, each distinct from but relatedto phenomenathey had explored.
The thirdquestion began with a brief summaryof the two sides of the previous
day's debateand then asked:
Argue for your position, supportingwhat you say with evidence from the
electrostaticslabs. Be sureto addresscounter-arguments:
Whatwouldpeople
on the otherside say, and what do you argueis wrong with theirreasoning?
If you can, devise an experimentaltest and explain how that test would
distinguishbetween the two theories.
The quiz results were encouragingwith respect to the students'understandingof

electrostaticcharge, attractionand repulsion, and conductionand insulation;the
results were somewhat less encouragingwith respect to their abilities to present
argumentsand evidence in defense of their position. In particular,many of the
studentsstill had troublerecountinga line of reasoningalternativeto theirown and
identifyingits flaw.
Ourworkwith the ElectrostaticsActivities continuedthroughthe end of March,
studyingLeydenjars (capacitors)madefrom 35 mm film canistersand the motion
of charge using bulbs sensitive to very small currents.The Marinophenomenon
remaineda relevanttopic of discussion, and we eventuallyarrivedat a consensus
for the HAM explanationof an inducedseparationof charge. In April, a student
teachertook over, andtheclass studiedcircuits,includingelectricpotential,current,
and resistance.
An EmergentCurriculum
Most teacher perceptions are of the sort presented in the first portion of this
narrative:They concern and inform teacher interactionswith individuals and
groups, assessing and supportingtheir progresswith respectto a generalagenda.
Often,however,teacherperceptionsandjudgmentsreshapethatagenda,sometimes
for individualstudentsand sometimesfor the class as a whole. The HAM theory,
the Marinophenomenon,and the experimentsand debatesthey engenderedwere
examples,productsof students'inquirythatI perceivedandpromotedas contribu-
tions to the substanceof the course. In otherwords, I discoveredstudentideas that
I chose to elevate to the level of curriculum.
Much of what the studentsdiscoveredin these classes was directlyin line with
the design of the ElectrostaticsActivities worksheets,including both the HAM
theory and the Marinophenomenon.Studentsdo sometimes see and invent what
they are intendedto see and invent, and well-designed materialscan improvethe
514 HAMMER
chances of that happening. Materials such as ElectrostaticsActivities do not

determinethe flow of learningandinstruction,buttheycando muchto productively
constrainit, guiding students' experiences of the naturalworld. Thus, students
following these worksheetsare both likely to discover an attractionbetween the
chargedelectrophorusand foam plate and highly unlikelyto discover a repulsion.
If it is an errorto believe thattruthresides in nature,"3
it is also an errorto believe
that scientists' or students'constructionsare independentof nature.
Still, the students'discoveriesin theselessons oftencameon a differentschedule
from thatguided by the materials.Amelia concoctedchargeseparationin answer
to a question designed to elicit that idea, but Camille discovered the Marino
phenomenonat a momentwhen the worksheetswould have hadherthinkingabout
somethingelse, andthe charging-by-induction explanationof theelectrophoruswas
not expected until later. Moreover, much of what they discovered was neither
guided nor anticipated.Nothing in the worksheets,for example, addressedeither
the "samematerial"or "byproximity"explanationsof chargesharing;conceptions
of chargeas "current,"as "aura,"or as necessarilyuniformthroughoutan object;
or Ning's clever but flawed experimentof touchingthe electrophorusfrom under-
neath.
On a traditionalview of teaching and curriculum,one might expect these
worksheetsto succeed in guiding the flow of studentlearningthroughthe prede-
terminedsequenceof ideasandobservations.Thereby,one wouldsee shortcomings
in the ElectrostaticsActivities for not anticipatingthe variousaspects of students'
knowledgeandreasoning.The teacher'srole in thatview is peripheral,to help keep
the studentson the plannedpath,and the most successfulmaterialsshould obviate
teacherintervention.
On the view of teaching and curriculumthat I am promoting,a curriculum
succeeds not by guiding the flow of learningand instructionbut by helping to
establish an arena of activity rich with opportunitiesfor student and teacher
discovery. Within that arena, the substance of the course-the curricu-
lum--emerges. This is a view of teachingthatis moreflexible with respectto pace
and substance,but it is also more dependenton teacherawarenessandjudgment.
Presuming uncertainty,the teacher does not expect students to arrive at given
insights at given moments;rather,it is the teacher's responsibilityto recognize
when and if they arriveat those insights or others,to discover theirprogress,and
diagnose theirdifficulties.The teacher'srole is not simply to keep studentson the
131say if here because many productivescientistsclaim to operateby preciselythis belief. It would

be strangeto assertthatthey are simply incorrect,as if it is a normativetruththatthereis no normative
truth.If the notionthattruthresidesin natureis a social construction,so is the notionthattruthis a social
construction.Which of these notionsis valid should,like othersocial constructions,dependon context.
Inthe contextsof manyscientists'careers,it seems to havebeeneffective forthemto believe the former.
right path; it is to find out what paths there are, to scout aheadto see where they
may lead, and to makejudgmentsaboutwhich ones to follow.
That judgment often involves negotiating the tension between inquiry and
traditionalcontent.At the end of the periodon March 10, the class had arrivedat
the HAM theory,andI hadto decidehow to proceed.Onepossibilitywas to endorse
the accountas correct,to marka point of closure. Had it been closer to the end of
the year, or had I been preparingthe studentsfor an achievementtest, thatis likely
what I would have done. But I did not want to do anything that might support
authority-centeredbeliefs aboutlearning(Hammer,1994). I also saw an opportu-
nity to pursuean inquiry-orientedagenda.Insteadof closing the subject,I triedto
keep it open, to use it as a means to engage studentsin practicesof reflecting on
the model as a model, assessing its consistency with what else they knew, and
looking for alternativeexplanationsthatmight compete with it.
Duringthe discussion on March 18, the HAM theorywas hotly contested,with
perhapshalf of the studentsin the class disbelievingthe correctchargeseparation
accountof the electrophorus.At the close of thatperiod,I saw Ning's experiment
as a lovely innovationthat would likely lead studentsto a wrong conclusion. In
each case, I had to decide how to coordinate inquiry and traditionalcontent,
although,again, the two agendaswere not entirelydistinct:The inquiryI wanted
to promotewould also, I hoped,help the studentsbuildmorerobustunderstandings
of the traditionalcontentI wantedthem eventuallyto accept.
Again, too, there was much that I did not perceive. In reflecting,for example,
on Steve's and others' contentionson March 18 thatthe electrophorusacquireda
chargeby the proximityof the foam plate, I now realizethatthey were correctin a
way I did not recognize at the time. The definition posited by the worksheetsin
Section 1.2 stated that an object is charged if it "attractsbits of paper";by that
definition,the studentswere correct.The worksheetspromptedsome revisions to
thatdefinitionin Section 2, but none thatwould affect the correctnessof this view.
In arguing that the electrophoruswas not charged, Ning and the others were
implicitlychangingthe definition.Hadthis occurredto me at the time, I wouldhave
made a focus of discussion, in the context of this disagreement,our definition of
charged and how we should revise it. This might have had the benefit both of
helping the studentsdevelop an appreciationof how definitionsform and become
revisedandof helpingthemarriveat a moreappropriatedefinition.As it happened,
that substancedid not emerge as partof our curriculumbecauseI did not perceive
it in the discussion.
TEACHINGFROMA STANCEOF INQUIRY
The imageof teachingpresentedin this articleshouldbe distinguishedfromteacher

researchor action researchas described,for example,by Cochran-SmithandLytle
516 HAMMER
(1993) andby Feldman(1996). In particular,whatI havecharacterizedas discovery

teaching is teaching from a stance of inquiry, that is, everyday teaching and
everydayinquiry,which is rarelysystematic,articulate,or madepublic.This by no
means questionsthe value of teacherresearch;rather,it focuses on the inquiryof
teachingin and of itself, independentof any objectivesof descriptionor argumen-
tation.
To a teacher adopting such a stance, the classroom is an arena not only for
student exploration but also for teacher exploration-of the students' under-
standingand reasoning,of the subjectmatter,of what constitutesprogresstoward
expertise,and of how to facilitatethatprogress.This entailsa shift in the teacher's
conceptionof planning,in thatit is planningfor explorationratherthanto achieve
a set of predetermined,observableoutcomes. It also entails a shift in the role of
materials-as helping to shape an arena of activity ratherthan as directing the
flow of learningand instruction.Finally, it entails a shift in the understandingof
the substanceof the course-as flexible and evolving in response to perceptions
of the students' strengths and weaknesses rather than fixed in advance by a
syllabus.
Student Inquiryand TraditionalContent
This stanceof inquiry,as opposedto the conventionalstanceof certainty(McDon-

ald, 1992), changes, in severalrespects,how a teacherexperiencesand negotiates
the tension between studentinquiryand traditionalcontent.
Firstand most simply, it affordsflexibility anddemandsteacherjudgmentwith
respect to the pace and paths by which studentsmeet traditionalcontent-oriented
objectives. Ratherthankeeping studentson trackand makingappropriatediscov-
eries on a designatedschedule,the teacher'sresponsibilityis to ascertainwhatthey
arediscoveringandto judge how to proceed.Studentsin the class describedearlier,
for example,arrivedat an understandingof the differencebetweena conductorand
an insulatorlater and by a more convoluted route than I or the materials had
anticipated;they engaged the topic of chargingby inductionearlierand with less
preparation.
Second, a stance of inquiry affords flexibility and demandsjudgment with
respect to the pursuitand evolution of course objectives. Teacherperceptionsof
students' particularstrengthsand needs influence decisions of whether to fore-
groundinquiryor traditionalcontent-orientedobjectives and of whetherand how
to modify them.Thus,at the outsetof ourworkwith ElectrostaticsActivities, I saw
a need for inquiry-orientedintervention,to pressthe class into moreproductiveuse
of the worksheets;on the day before the quiz, I gained new awareness of the
students'reasoningaboutcharge and the mechanismof the electrophorus,and it
became partof my agendato addressthe alternativeideas they expressed.
Third,a stance of inquiryaffords flexibility andjudgment with respect to the

natureof inquiryand its relationto content. Ratherthan commit to a specific but
inadequatedefinition, the teachermay adopt a more open, varied view of what
constitutes expertise in the discipline and how it may develop in students,
expecting thatview to evolve. Thus Greg and Jean's "samematerial"explanation
and experimental confirmation gave me fresh insight into how students' and
scientists' inquiry may depend on and entwine with their traditionalcontent
knowledge. Consideringthe respectively theoreticaland empiricalcontributions
of Amelia's explanationand-Camille's discovery renewedmy sense of the range
of ways in which studentsand scientists may enter and practicethe discipline of
physics.
The IntellectualDemands of Teaching
It is importantto recognize that this view of the coordinationof inquiry and

traditionalcontentplaces substantialintellectualdemandson the teacher.
The students'argumentson March18, forexample,challengedme to understand
what they meant in saying the charge on the foam plate was passing throughthe
electrophorus,or surroundingit like an aura,or jumping like a spark.Perhapsby
charged, they meant somethingsuch as electrostaticallyactive? Might therebe a
substantiveconnectionbetween some of their ideas and physicists' ideas, perhaps
between the student'snotion of an auraand the physicist's concept of a field, or
are the ideas fundamentallyinconsistent?
These matters presented demands on my understandingand reasoning in
physics. There were questions that I needed to solve for myself in these lessons,
such as why a plastic strawcould appearto conduct electricity, or what precisely
was the flaw in Ning' s reasoningfor her experimentat the end of class on March
18. More than that, I needed to follow the students' arguments, to understand
them on their own terms. Given what they knew and had experienced, were their
inferences reasonable and self-consistent, or were they flawed in ways students
should be able to recognize? What line of reasoning could I find, starting from
the students' positions, that could lead them in the directionof the ideas I hoped
they would develop?Whatmightbe seeds of expertisein theirideas andreasoning,
and what might be impediments?
A teacherwith inadequatepreparationin the disciplinewould be at a substantial
disadvantagein following students' unfamiliarargumentsand ideas expressed in
unfamiliarvocabulary (McDermott, 1990). This magnifies concerns about the
practiceof assigningteachersto coursesoutsidetheirexpertise.The notionthatthe
teachercan "staya chapterahead"of the studentsis embeddedin a view of substance
as traditionalcontentandin a stanceof certaintyregardinglearningandinstruction.
Recognitionof discipline-specificintellectualdemandsalso raisesquestionsabout
518 HAMMER
currenttrends toward interdisciplinaryteaching and teacher certification,to the

extent thatthese requirebreadthof preparationat the cost of depthwithin a given
area.
More generally,how teachersperceiveandunderstandtheirstudentsreflectsthe
intellectualresourcesthey have availablefor perceivingandunderstanding.These
resourcesgo beyondknowledgeandreasoningin the discipline,as did the percep-
tions I have recounted in this article, including those of the students' initial
fill-in-the-blanksapproach,Julie's disengagement,Camille's pridein her discov-
ery, or Steve's reputationas the top studentin the class. What I perceived,in all
these respects,reflectedthe resourcesI had available,and what I did not perceive
reflectedlimitations.Therewas muchI did not notice, includingthe earnestnessof
Sarah'sandNancy's ideas aboutthe plasticstrawandthe fact thatit was consistent
with the definitionin the worksheetsto concludethattheelectrophoruswas charged
by the proximityof the chargedfoam plate.
Teachersdeveloptheseresourcesin manyways, oftenthroughteaching.In these
lessons, for example,I learnedmoreabouthow the concepts of chargeand current
may not be distinctin students'reasoning,thatstudentsmay considerthe shape of
an objectsuch as a strawrelevantto its conductivity,andthatthey may be confused
over when to thinkof chargeas a propertyof an objectas a whole or when to think
in terms of the distributionof microscopiccharges.I will not be as surprisedthe
next time I hearthe "samematerial"explanation,andthenexttimeI use worksheets,
I will considerpresentingthem fromthe outsetas tools studentsshoulduse at their
discretion.
Teacherswho have the opportunityalso develop resourcesthroughconversa-
tions with colleagues.WhenI presenta videotapeor transcriptof one of my classes
to others, they invariablynotice things I have not. Different teachers perceive
students' work and needs in differentways, and professionalexchange supports
teachers' developmentof their intellectualresourcesas they introduceand refine
new ideas. Case-based(J. H. Shulman, 1992) methods of teachereducationand
professional development promote both individual reflection and collegial ex-
change.
A Role for Perspectives FromEducationResearch
Teachers may also develop intellectual resources from reading, discussing, or

participatingin education research. In these classes, my understandingof the
students' initial approachto the worksheetswas influenced by perspectives on
cognition as situatedin social practices(J. S. Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989;
Lave & Wenger, 1991; Meira, 1991). My understandingof theirreasoningabout
chargeand currentwas influencedby perspectiveson cognitive structure(diSessa,
1993;Strike& Posner,1985;see also Hammer,1996a).My perceptionsof students
as having beliefs aboutknowledge and learningwere shapedby my own research

into students'epistemologies(Hammer,1994; see also Hammer,1995a). Perspec-
tives on the history and philosophy of science (Feyerabend,1988; Latour, 1987)
moved me to adopta moreopen view of the natureof scientificinquiryin scientists
and as it might appearin students(see also Hammer,1995b).This is not to suggest
thatI have incorporatedthese perspectivesinto an encompassing,coherenttheory
of learningand instruction;I have not. Rather,I am constructinga collection of
interpretivelenses, or conceptualtools, basedon or inspiredby these perspectives
and others,that serve me variouslyas I try to make sense of what happensin my
classes.
My purposehere is not to presenta taxonomyof formsand sourcesof teachers'
intellectualresourcesbut to suggest a conceptualizationof how educationresearch
might contributeto instructionalpractice(Hammer,1996b). On a traditionalview
framed by assumptionsof certainty,researchproduces methods, curricula,and
principles of learning and instruction,which teachers adopt and apply. A more
progressiveview focuses not on communicatingresultsof researchto teachersbut
ratheron teachers' participationin that research(Cochran-Smith& Lytle, 1993;
Feldman, 1996). The lattercan be more accommodatingto assumptionsof uncer-
taintybecause it can locate the researchand its implicationsin the situation.14
I am suggesting a view of research,whetherby teachersor by researchers,as
contributingto instructionalpracticeby supportingandenhancingteacherinquiry,
not necessarilyby imposing on thatinquiryan esthetic of researchor by providing
a theoreticalfoundationbut by providingideas to supportteachers'construction,
articulation,and refinementof intellectualresources.A perspectivefrom research
may provide a frameworkand vocabulary to help teachers become aware of,
communicate,anddevelop theiroften tacitperceptionsandjudgment.Or, perhaps
less often, it may lead teachersto entirelynew perceptionsand considerations.
McDonald (1986) offered a similar image in his account of the ironic role
of educationaltheory in contributingto discussions among a group of teachers.
The Teachers' Resources Network (Davenport & Sassi, 1996), from which I
have drawn the term resource, was designed from a similar orientationtoward
the role of resources in teachers' practices,with resourcesbroadly conceived to
include curriculummaterials as well as both theoreticaland practical accounts
of learning and teaching. Davenport and Sassi suggested that accounts that
include narrativesof authenticclassroom learningand instructionare especially
useful for teachers.
This view of the contributionof researchto instructionalpracticesuggests the
importanceof understandinghow perspectivesfromresearchmay influenceteach-
14It is importantto acknowledge,however,thatteacherresearchmayalso be conductedandpresented

from a stance of certainty.
520 HAMMER
ers' perceptionsandjudgments.Hewson and Hewson (1988) and the Cognitively

Guided Instructionproject (Knapp & Peterson, 1995; Peterson, Fennema, &
Carpenter,1992) consideredthe implicationsof researchon students'knowledge
and learningin termsof its influenceon teacherunderstanding.A groupof physics
teachers and I are working along similar lines to understandthe influence of
perspectivesfrom educationresearchon teachers'perceptionsandjudgments,in
the context of collaborativeinquiry into student participation,knowledge, and
reasoning,using episodes from the teachers'classes.
ina Cultureof Certainty

Implications
Teaching,closelyread,is messy:full of conflict,fragmentations, andambivalence.
Theseconditionsof uncertainty a
present problem in a culturethattendsto regard
conflictas distastefuland thatprizesunity,predictability, rationaldecisiveness,
certainty.Thisis a setup:Teachinginvolvesa lot of "bad"stuff,yet teachersare
expectedto be "good."(McDonald,1992,p. 21)
The view of teaching I have describedin this article is not new. Many teachers
practicediscoveryteaching,teachingfrom a stanceof inquirywith respectto their
students.But they do so againstthe culturalgrain,againsta set of assumptionsand
estheticsof predictabilityandcontrolthatremainembeddedin practicesat all levels
of the educationalsystem. I have focused on uncertaintiesregardingthe substance
of the discipline, specifically concerningthe coordinationof studentinquiryand
traditionalcontent.In closing, I touch briefly on some implicationsof this view of
teachingwith respectto teachers'courseloads, curriculum,teachereducation,and
the use of cases.
First, this article presenteda highly distilled account of only 2 weeks from a
single class, but most teachersare responsiblefor four or five classes a day. That
teachersoften have several sections of the "sameprep"is little solace: As every
teacher knows, different classes respond differently to the same lesson, and to
embracefully a stance of inquiryin teachingwould be to surrenderthis notion of
sameness.If schools are to conceive of teachingas involving inquiry,perception,
and judgment, one implicationis clear: Teacherloads must be reducedto make
time for thatinquiry.
A second implicationis the need for a distinctionbetweenthe curriculumin the
sense of the syllabus and materialschosen in advance,and the curriculumin the
sense of the substance and form of learning and instruction.To be sure, most
teachers adapt materials to their situations, but there has been relatively little
discussion of how this occurs or what it implies for curriculumdevelopers.
Third,this view of teachingsuggestsanagendaforpreserviceteachereducation:
cultivatinga stanceof inquiryandhelpingprospectiveteachersdevelop intellectual
LEARNING
resources for pursuing that inquiry. This, a principal virtue of the use of cases
(J. H. Shulman,1992) in preserviceteachereducation,drawsstudentteachersinto
practices of inquiryas well as into practicesof professionalexchange.
Finally, with respectto the use of cases morebroadly,we need to learnmore as
a community about how to use cases (L. S. Shulman, 1992) and how to "read"
teaching (McDonald, 1992) with all of its messiness, conflicts, and ambiguity.As
I noted earlier,all instructiongoes awry in at least some respect:There is always
somethingthatthe teacherdid not notice, or did notice but chose not to address,or
triedto addressbutdid not resolve.This presentsa challengeto substantivecritique
of teaching, part of McDonald's setup: One can always find reason to fault the
teacher.But the solutionis not simplyto supportall teacherdecisions. Whetherfor
the purposesof research,collaboration,or evaluation,we need to develop appro-
priatepracticesof criticism.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by a Spencer Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship

awardedby the NationalAcademy of Educationand by the Centerfor the Devel-
opmentof Teaching,at the EducationDevelopmentCenterin Newton, Massachu-
setts, from a grant by the Dewitt Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund. The LabNet
project was supportedby NationalScience FoundationGrantESI-9155358. The
views expressedin this article,however,do not necessarilyreflect those of any of
these organizations.
I am gratefulto Patty Rourkeand Greg Lockett for introducingme to Robert
Morse's wonderfulmaterials;to JosephPigantielloand Andy Anzalone for all of
theirsupportandpatience;andto Jim Hammerman,LaurenKozlen, GregLockett,
Jim Minstrell,RobertMorse,DeborahSchifter,CarySneider,Kelly Wedding,and
Sam Wineburgfor theircommentson draftsof this article.
REFERENCES
Ball, D. (1993).Withaneye on themathematical horizon:Dilemmasof teachingelementary school

mathematics. Elementary SchoolJournal,93, 373-397.
Brown,A. (1992).Designexperiments: Theoretical
andmethodologicalchallenges increatingcomplex
interventions in classroomsettings.TheJournalof theLearningSciences,2, 141-178.
Brown,J. S., Collins,A., & Duguid,P. (1989). Situatedcognitionand the cultureof learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1),32-42.
Cochran-Smith, M.,&Lytle,S. L.(1993).Inside/outside: Teacherresearchandknowledge. NewYork:
TeachersCollegePress.
Davenport, L.R.,&Sassi,A. (1996).Transforming mathematicsteachingingradesK-8:Hownarrative
structuresin resourcematerials teacherchange.InB. S. Nelson(Ed.),Inquiryandthe
helpsupport
522 HAMMER
developmentof teaching(pp. 37-46). Newton, MA: EducationDevelopmentCenter,Centerforthe

Developmentof Teaching.
diSessa, A. (1993). Towardan epistemology of physics. Cognitionand Instruction,10, 105-225.
Feldman,A. (1996). Enhancingthe practiceof physics teachers:Mechanismsfor the generationand
sharingof knowledge and understandingin collaborativeaction research.Journal of Research in
Science Teaching,33, 513-540.
Feyerabend,P. K. (1988). Againstmethod.New York:Verso.
Gagn6, R. M. (1965). The psychological bases of science-A process approach. Washington,DC:
AmericanAssociation for the Advancementof Science.
Hammer,D. (1994). Epistemologicalbeliefs in introductoryphysics. Cognitionand Instruction,12,
151-183.
Hammer,D. (1995a). Epistemologicalconsiderationsin teachingintroductoryphysics. Science Educa-
tion, 79, 393-413.
Hammer,D. (1995b). Student inquiry in a physics class discussion. Cognitionand Instruction,13,
401-430.
Hammer, D. (1996a). Misconceptions or p-prims: How may alternativeperspectives of cognitive
structureinfluence instructionalperceptionsand intentions?TheJournalof the LearningSciences,
5, 97-127.
Hammer, D. (1996b). More than misconceptions:Multiple perspectiveson student knowledge and
reasoning, and an appropriaterole for education research. American Journal of Physics, 64,
1316-1325.
Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. A. (1988). An appropriateconceptionof teaching science: A view
from studies of science learning.Science Education,72, 597-614.
Hodson, D. (1988). Towarda philosophicallymore valid science curriculum.Science Education,72,
19-40.
Knapp,N., & Peterson,P. L. (1995). Teachers'interpretationsof "CGI"afterfouryears:Meaningsand
practices.Journalfor Research in MathematicsEducation,26, 40-65.
Lampert,M. (1989). Choosingandusing mathematicaltools in classroomdiscourse.InJ. Brophy(Ed.),
Advancesin researchon teaching (pp. 223-264). Greenwich,CT: JAI.
Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer:
Mathematicalknowing and teaching.AmericanEducationalResearchJournal,27, 29-63.
Latour,B. (1987). Science in action:How tofollow scientistsand engineersthroughsociety. Cambridge,
MA: HarvardUniversityPress.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimateperipheral participation. New York:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Lockett, G. (1996). Penumbra.In M. Shinohara,R. Wenn, & A. Sussman (Eds.), Tales from the
electronicfrontier (pp. 14-20). San Francisco:WestEd.
McDermott,L. C. (1990). A perspectiveon teacherpreparationin physicsand othersciences: The need
for special science courses for teachers.AmericanJournalof Physics, 58, 734-742.
McDonald,J. P. (1986). Raisingthe teacher'svoice andthe ironic role of theory.HarvardEducational
Review,56, 355-378.
McDonald,J. P. (1992). Teaching:Makingsense of an uncertaincraft. New York:TeachersCollege
Press.
Meira,L. (1991). Explorationsof mathematicalsense-making:An activity-orientedview of children's
use and design of material displays. Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,University of California,
Berkeley.
Minstrell, J. (1989). Teaching science for understanding.In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.),
Toward the thinking curriculum: Currentcognitive research (pp. 129-149). Alexandria, VA:
Associationfor Supervisionand CurriculumDevelopment.
Morse,R. A. (1991). Electrostaticsactivitiesfor students.College Park,MD: AmericanAssociation of

Physics Teachers.
National ResearchCouncil. (1996). National science educationstandards.Washington,DC: National
Academy Press.
Peterson, P. L., Fennema,E., & Carpenter,T. (1992). Using children's mathematicalknowledge. In
B. Means, C. Chelemer,& M. S. Knapp(Eds.), Teachingadvanced skills to at-risk children (pp.
68-111). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Richardson,V. (1994). Conductingresearchon practice.EducationalResearcher,23(5), 5-10.
Rosebery,A. S., Warren,B., & Conant,F. R. (1992). Appropriatingscientificdiscourse:Findingsform
language minorityclassrooms(TERCWorkingPapers).Cambridge,MA: TERC.
Roth, W.-M. (1995). Inventors,copycats,and everyone else-The emergenceof sharedresourcesand
practicesas defining aspects of classroomcommunities.Science Education,79, 475-502.
Roth, W.-M., & Roychoudhury,A. (1993). The developmentof science process skills in authentic
contexts. Journalof Researchin Science Teaching,30, 127-152.
Ruopp, R., Gal, S., Drayton, B., & Pfister, M. (1993). LabNet-Toward a communityof practice.
Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, Inc.
Sassi, A. M., & Goldsmith,L. T. (1996, April). Beyond recipes and behind the magic: Mathematics
teaching as improvisation.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education
ResearchAssociation, New York.
Schifter,D. (1996). What'shappeningin mathclass? Vol.1. Envisioningnewpractices throughteacher
narratives.New York:TeachersCollege Press.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflectivepractitioner:How professionals thinkin action. New York:Basic
Books.
Shulman,J. H. (1992). Case methodsin teachereducation.New York:TeachersCollege Press.
Shulman,L. S. (1987). Knowledgeandteaching:Foundationsof the new reform.HarvardEducational
Review,57, 1-22.
Shulman,L. S. (1992). Towarda pedagogyof cases. In J. H. Shulman(Ed.), Case methodsin teacher
education (pp. 1-30). New York:TeachersCollege Press.
Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding.In
L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structureand conceptual change (pp. 211-231).
New York: Academic.
Warren,B., & Rosebery, A. S. (1996). "This question is just too, too easy!" Perspectives from the
classroomon accountabilityin science. In L. Schauble& R. Glaser(Eds.),Innovationsin learning:
New environmentsfor education(pp. 97-126). Mahwah,NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, Inc.
Wilson, S. M., Shulman,L., & Richert,A. (1987). "150 differentways" of knowing: Representations
of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead(Ed.), Exploring teachers' thinking(pp. 104-124).
London:Cassell.
Wilson, S. M., & Wineburg,S. S. (1993). Wrinklesin time andplace: Using performanceassessments
to understandthe knowledge of history teachers.American EducationalResearch Journal, 30,
729-769.
Wineburg,S. S., & Wilson, S. M. (1988, September).Models of wisdom in the teachingof history.Phi
Delta Kappan,70, 50-58.
524 HAMMER
APPENDIXA
Morse(1991) Section 4
Section 4. The Electrophorus:A Device

for GeneratingStatic Electricity
Materials:Dow blue styrofoaminsulationor styrofoampicnic plate, 8 or 9 inch

disposable aluminumpie plate, foam coffee cup, plastic drinkingstraw, wool or
fur, and tape.
4.1
A. To make an electrophorus,take a 30 cm (one foot) squareof foam for the

base, or use a disposablestyrofoampicnic plate. Take a disposablealuminumpie
plate(8"or9")andfastenan insulatinghandleto it by tapinga styrofoamcup upside
down in the centerof the pie plate. You will also need to make a second pie plate
with a foam cup handlefor some of the experiments,or you may shareequipment
with a partner.
foam
cup
aluminum
pieplate
foampad
B. Rub the top surface of the foam with fur to charge it. Slowly lower the
electrophoruspie plate (henceforthcalled the electrophorusplate) to a height of a
few millimetersabove the foam while holding it by the cup handle.Be carefulnot
to touch the pie plate with your handor armunless instructedto do so.
The materialin AppendixA is fromElectrostaticsActivitiesfor Students(pp. A12-A14), by Robert

A. Morse, 1991, College Park,MD: AmericanAssociationof Physics Teachers.Copyright1991, 1992
by AmericanAssociation of Physics Teachers(301-209-3300; www.aapt.org)and RobertA. Morse.
Reprintedwith permission.
Still holding the electrophorusplate by the cup, raise it away from the foam.
Touch the electrophorusplate to your leaf electroscope.Is the electrophorusplate
charged?
C. Again lower the electrophorusplate to a pointjust above the foam, and this
time touch the electrophorusplate briefly with your finger while it is on or just
above the foam. What happens?
Slowly lift the electrophorusplate by the handle. Do you feel any interaction
between the electrophorusplate and the foam pad as you lift? Is it attractiveor
repulsive?
Touch the electrophorusplate to your leaf electroscope. Is the electrophorus

plate charged?
Touchthe electrophorusplateto yourpithball. Whatdoes the pithball do? What

can you say aboutthe chargeon the pith ball and the chargeon the electrophorus
plate.
Now bringthe foam pad nearthe pith ball. Whatcan you say aboutthe charges
on the pith ball and the foam pad?
Clearly the electrophorusis an effective, interesting and slightly puzzling

chargingdevice. Temporarilyyou will use it to supply charges for other experi-
ments before tryingto develop a betterunderstandingof how it works.
4.2
A. Take a plastic strawand glue aluminumfoil to it so that it is covered with

foil. Take anotherstrawwithouta foil covering. Use a bit of duct or maskingtape
and tape one end of each straw to the rim of the electrophorusplate at separate
places so thatthey stickouthorizontally.Set upthepithballelectroscopeandbriefly
touch the pith ball with your finger. Rub the foam pad or the foam plate with the
wool or fur, then pick up the electrophorusplate by its handle, set it on the foam
pad and touch it briefly with your finger.Lift the electrophorusplateby its handle,
being careful not to touch the plate or the straws.Move the plate so that first the

526 HAMMER
outerend of the plain strawtouches the pith ball and then the outerend of the foil
strawtouchesthe pith ball. Whathappensin each case?
Does the plain strawchargethe pith ball?
Does the foil strawchargethe.pithball?
Is the end of the plain strawcharged?
Is the end of the foil strawcharged?
How could you find out if the chargedstate of the pith ball is the same as or
differentfrom thatof the styrofoam?Devise an experimentand find out.
B. Repeat the experimentin 4.2A, this time using the foil leaf electroscope.
Does it move when touchedwith the plain straw?With the foil straw?
C. How did the foil covered straw get charged?How did the pith ball get
charged?How is this differentfrom the way thatthe tapes and foam got charged?
4.3
Rub the foam pad with the fur or wool again,then pick up the electrophorusplate
by its handle,set it on the foam pad and touch it briefly with your finger. Lift the
electrophorusplateby its handle,being carefulnot to touchtheplate or the straws.
Now touch the end of the plastic straw with your finger and then bring the
electrophorusplate near the hanging pith ball. Is the plate still charged? Did
touchingthe end of the plastic strawchangethe chargeon the plate?
Repeatthe chargingsequence.This time touchthe end of the foil coveredstraw

brieflywith yourfinger.Bringthe electrophorusplatenearthe pithball. Is the plate
still charged?Did touchingthe end of the foil covered strawchangethe chargeon
the plate?
Objects that behave like the plastic straw, the foam and the tape are called
insulators.Objects that behave like the foil covered straw and the pith balls are

DISCOVERY
LEARNING
ANDTEACHING 527
called conductors.We will continueto look at the differencesin theirbehaviorand

try to account for it in developing a model of electric charge. In a conductorwe
may imagine that one or both types of charge are free to move, whereas in an
insulatorneithertype of chargecan move very muchor very readily.You may now
use the electroscopeand electrophorusto investigatea varietyof materialsand see
if they behave like conductorsor insulators.You will probablyfind that some
materialshave a behaviorin betweenthose of the foil coveredstrawandthe plastic
straw,and thatthereis a rangeof behaviorof materials.
4.4
Canyou explainthe resultsof experiments4.1, 4.2 and4.3 usingthis model?Sketch

a sequenceof diagramslike a comic stripshowing whatmightbe happeningto the
chargesin these experiments.Check your descriptionwith your teacher.
APPENDIXB
BriefExplanationsof Some ElectrostaticPhenomena
Peeling Tapes
The second section of Morse's (1991) worksheetsinvolves transparentadhesive
tape. Peeling tape, in particular,is an effective way of generatinga staticelectric
charge.
One of the activities was as follows: Cut two pieces of tape, each about 6 in.
(15 cm) long. Stick one piece of tape to a table top, and stick the second piece on
top of the first, to make a pair.Then, keepingthe pairtogether,peel them from the
table top. For this activity, you want the pair to be electrostaticallyneutral,but
peeling themfromthe tableprobablygave thema charge.To neutralizethem,brush
both sides of the pairwith yourfingers,or, better,brushthem againsta metalwater
faucet.
With the pairneutral,peel them apart,with one quick pull. This shouldgive the
two pieces of tape an equal but opposite electric charge, so that they attracteach
other. If you charge other objects, such as other pieces of tape, plastic straws or
StyrofoamTM plates, they will all attractone piece of tape from the pair and repel
the other.This suggeststhattherearetwo kindsof electriccharge,whichhave come
to be known as positive and negative. Positive chargesrepel each otherand attract
negative charges;negativechargesrepel each otherand attractpositive.
The materialin AppendixA is fromElectrostaticsActivitiesfor Students(pp. A12-A 14), by Robert

A. Morse, 1991, College Park,MD: AmericanAssociationof PhysicsTeachers.Copyright1991, 1992
528 HAMMER
The PithBall
A pithball is a tiny ball used to detectelectriccharge,so namedbecausethey were

traditionallymade from pith (the inside of a plant stem). For these activities, we
often used tiny pieces of crumpledaluminumfoil insteadof pith.This ball becomes
chargedby contactwith otherchargedobjects;once charged,it is visibly attracted
to the opposite charge and repelled by a like charge.In this way, it is useful for
detectingthe presenceof electriccharge.
InducedPolarization:Whya ChargedElectrophorus
Attractsa NeutralPithBall
Greg and Jean spent much of their time on March 8 trying to understandwhy a
chargedelectrophoruswould attracta neutralpith ball. To a physicist,the answer
is this: At first, the pith ball is neutral,which means it has the same amountof
positive and negative charge. But the positively chargedelectrophoruscauses a
polarizationof chargein the neutralpith ball, pullingnegative chargesto one side
of the pith ball and repellingpositive chargesto the other, as shown in Figure 2.
This meansthatthe negativechargesin the pithball arecloser to the electrophorus
plate than are the positive charges in the pith ball, so the negative charges are
attractedslightly more stronglythanthe positive chargesarerepelled.In this way,
there is a net attractiveforce by the electrophoruson the pith ball. When the pith
ball strikesthe plate,however,chargecan move betweenthe plateandthe pithball,
andthe pithball ends up with morepositive chargeon it thannegative.The greater
positive chargeon the pith ball is repelledmore stronglythanthe negative charge
is, so the net force on the pith ball becomes repulsive.
MoreInducedPolarization:Chargingthe Electrophorus
A neutralobject has an equal amountof positive and negativecharge(protonsand

electrons). Rubbing a foam plate with cloth or fur causes it to have a surplusof
negativecharge.Thatis the first step in chargingan electrophorus:Chargea foam
plate. The next step is to bring the electrophorus,an aluminumplate, near the
chargedfoam plate, as shown in FigureB 1. With the electrophorusplate close to
the chargedfoam, the negativechargeon the foam repelsthe negativechargein the
electrophorusand attractsthe positive charge. Aluminum conducts electricity,
which means that (negative) charge can move within it, so the repulsion of the
negative charge by the foam plate pushes some negative chargeto the top of the
electrophorus.This gives the top of the electrophorusa net negative charge and
leaves the bottom of the plate with a net positive charge,as shown in Figure B2.
Because no chargemoves onto or off the electrophorus,however,it remainsneutral
LEARNING
as a whole, with equalamountsof positive andnegativecharge.The final step,then,

is to touch the top of the plate with somethingthatwill conductelectricity,such as
a finger, as shown in Figure B3. Touching the top of the electrophorusgives the
negative charge there an escape route-a way to move even furtherfrom the
negatively chargedfoam plate-and there is a small sparkbetween the plate and
the finger as this happens. This reduces the amount of negative charge on the
electrophorus,leaving it with a net positive charge.
neutral
electrophorus
chargedStyrofoamTM
FIGURE B1 Bring the electropho- S-- plate
rus close to the chargedfoam plate.
FIGURE B2 The negatively chargedfoam plate attractspositive chargein the electrophorus

and repels negative charge. Because the electrophorusis made of aluminum and allows
(negative) charge to move, the aluminumplate becomes polarized,with more negative charge
on the top and more positive chargeon the bottom.
FIGURE B3 Touchingthe electrophoruswith a fingerlets repellednegative chargeleave the

plate, leaving it with a net positive charge.

Hammer 1997 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hammer 1997 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Discovery Learning and Discovery Teaching

Author(s): David Hammer

Teachers interestedin promotingstudentinquiryoften feel a tension between that

Jean,Greg,Jack,andJulie'areat a labbenchin a high school physicsclass, working

Greg: Because this [indicatesthe plate] is aluminum,right?And this [the

Greg agrees, and I check with Jean,Julie, and Jack,askingeach in turn,"Whatdo

I tell them "That's a great experiment,"expecting it will disconfirm Greg's

IStudent names are pseudonyms.

For science educators interested in the broaderaims of reform, there is often

sociological commitments;in general, they are framedin terms of a distinction

Effortsto reformscience education,fromthe level of nationalprojectsto individual

content and then address inquiry-orientedobjectives through assignments that

preconceivednotions. Perhapsit is not entirelytrue that I want them to be more

Thatstudentsmay discover,throughlegitimateinquiry,the "wrong"ideas, is now

3Thispointis often misinterpretedto supportan untenable,unproductiverelativism.Thatphysicists'

inquiry-orientedobjectives,in themselvesandas likely prerequisitesfor traditional

Views of teaching as uncertainand contingent have been developed in various

proceed,drawingcontributionsand argumentsfrom otherstudentsandeventually

Popularappreciationandacademicdiscussionof issues facingteachersoftencenter

urbansettings, culturaland sexual inequities,and discipline and motivation.Per-

February23-26 (Tuesday-Friday) Gettingstartedwith ElectrostaticsActivities

videotapes with transcripts,the daily journal, and my reconstructionslater on

GroupWork:Studentand Teacher Inquiryand Discovery

meetings on Monday, March 8, and Tuesday, March9, when we resumed work

February23-26: Developinga sense of the task. Electrostatics

March8: 'The stand mightbe charged, too." We hadspentthefirsthalf

FIGURE 2 Greg's idea about the

Muchof thisthe studentswereintendedto havediscussedin Section4. 1C, which

8See AppendixB for furtherexplanationof inducedpolarization.

March9: The "samematerial"explanation. The class was much more

101had not assignedanythingfromthe textbooksince Novemberbecause I felt it was not

In this way, I helpedthemreconstructthe experimentto give the appropriateresult,

Teacher: Do it again. [watching]That's prettyweird.It still does it.

At first, I thoughtNancy was joking aboutcharge"comingthroughthe straw,"

They trieda series of otherstrawsand consultedwith othergroups,but they could

power cord, touchinga pith ball to an electroscope,and investigatingthe anomaly

Class Discussions:The "HAM"

The previoussection concernedteacherperceptionsand intentionswith respectto

March10:Amelia'sexplanation. Amelia approachedme after class on

Teacher: Camille, [you seem to think]that's an importantpoint.

FIGURE 3 Schematic depiction of

Removing or adding an electron, she said, "makesthe atom become positively

Joannebuilt on Ning's idea with somethingshe rememberedfrom chemistry:

Joanne: Some objects, like, tend to give up electronsmore easily thanother

This was furtherprogresstowardthe understandingthat the worksheetswere

March11: Camille'sdiscovery. Severalstudentswere absentThursday,

FIGURE 4 The Marinophenomenon.Hold a neutralelectrophorusby its foam cup handle,

March12: The Marinophenomenonand the HAMtheory. We hadonly

the worksheets I had assigned as homework.Several had charged their electro-

March18:A HAMexplanationof the Marinophenomenonand some

"Ning was carefulto specify thatthe negativecharges(electrons)aremobile,andthe positivecharges

Severalstudentsdisagreedwith this explanation.Steve, Susan,Bruce,andSean

Charged foam plate.

Bring the charged foam plate close to the

Removethe foam plate,and the

aura andforce field. I was pleasedthese studentswere looking for connectionsand

right.Towardthe end of the period,the studentsidentifieda seriousproblemwith

The quiz results were encouragingwith respect to the students'understandingof

chances of that happening. Materials such as ElectrostaticsActivities do not

131say if here because many productivescientistsclaim to operateby preciselythis belief. It would

TEACHINGFROMA STANCEOF INQUIRY

The imageof teachingpresentedin this articleshouldbe distinguishedfromteacher

(1993) andby Feldman(1996). In particular,whatI havecharacterizedas discovery