Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I guess, the article is more an example for a physics textbook than a summary of results of research. The authors make proposals for an alternative access to several topics of physics, which share one connecting background. This is similar to the well known „Karlsruhe physics course“ whose authors are mentioned in the reference twice. However, for a research-based contribution it would have been necessary to include the discussion of this access. Some of the suggestions the authors make must be compared with those of this access and with the ideas of other proposals already existing, for example the idea to imagine energy as something touchable.

For the discussion of the educational or didactical part it is necessary to include the discussion of the productivity of such access, there already exists empirically based research about that topic. And there is for example research about the idea to make the transport of energy more illustrative (including both advantages and disadvantages).

Finally, in every case of making suggestions for alternative access to well established parts of physics in classes it would be helpful if the authors could give some data or at least some impressions about their own experience with their own ideas (there is one article mentioned, but just cursory).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well-written and robust article. The argumentation on how embodied simulations and theatrical performances should be designed is solid. Possible questions and objections are appropriately advanced in the footnotes.

However, from a didactic point of view I have some considerations that need to be answered by the authors, and, where appropriate, nuanced in the article:

1.-  Is it not excessively biased in the linguistic and narrative analysis? It gives the feeling that science is "a way of narrating or speaking" just as valid as others (for example: religion).  It should be noted that we can "say what we want" about things, but not " do whatever we want" with them. Scientific knowledge is the result of a three-way dialogue: the researcher, the real world and the scientific community. Scientists pose questions or problems of interest, which they try to solve by proposing logical plans, formulating hypotheses and models, inventing concepts, subjecting ideas to the most rigorous tests (with objects) possible, seeking coherence and universality, .... . In short, scientific epistemology is different from everyday epistemology. It does not seem a good idea not to distinguish stories from the generation of knowledge in the classroom with scientific aspiration (at proper level)

2.- Encouraging the naturalistic narrative, it favors a certain ontology with its vitalism, the intentionality of agents, the idea of agent/patient, unidirectional causality,... Can there be interference with many of the basic concepts and principles of Physics: For example, the third principle of dynamics (a big person pushing a small person versus simultaneous and interchangeable action-reaction); the self-regulation of systems (an electrical circuit)...?

3.- Is any example suitable for primary school possible (is the hydrogen cell?). Precisely in primary school it is appropriate to raise questions such as how are gases made to have the behavior they have? where does light come from, how does it move and how is it detected? Is attracting pieces of paper a property of all materials? What will it depend on how much a quantity of liquid is heated?

4.- From the didactic point of view, it gives the impression that a transmissive teaching is favored, where children are made to perform ES or theatrical representations -following instructions- which are narrated describing what they are doing in FoN's terms. Although they are subsequently asked for drawings and essays, this is a transmission of ready-made knowledge (via embodiment). Knowledge is not (re)constructed (between students and teacher) from an attempt to answer questions of interest, but is transmitted in its final state (via naturalistic narrative and simulation) and then accompanied by activities to remind them of it. It seems very far from the current consensus on how to teach science. Can you describe how is it introduced the ES or theatrical performance?

And in lines 500-502. “What we can learn from this exercise, apart from the drop of tension/pressure along the row, is that the flow of blood should be stronger if A pushes harder, and weaker if sliding across the floor is harder (this would be analogous to Ohm’s rule for electric conductors)”.

Mind!: In the resistors, the charge flow (I) is the same as in the wire, and the electrons go faster than in the wire. Is it reconsideration needed?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I have issues with the some of the structure of this manuscript.

First, various portions can come across as repetitive. This is because of several reasons: (1) several terms are defined, and redefined, and then defined once more;  (2) you spend a good deal of time telling us what you're going to say, saying it, and then once again telling us what you've said; (3) in several places, you use a vocabulary word and then list example parenthetically--this makes sense for the first usage, but it simply clutters the manuscript when you do it every time.

Next, your attempts to generalize/universalize concepts can tend toward overwhelming. Noticing the similarities between various physical models is a great way to introduce physical science to young students, but fitting everything into the intensive/extensive/forces-of-nature/power structures that you use to categorize might be emphasizing your "big ideas" more than making the topics understandable/approachable/accurate.

And it is on this last point that I have the biggest issue. I have been able to piece together between the citations and the nonstandard vocabulary who might be trying to discuss heat in this manner, but it is a nonstandard and potentially problematic view of heat. The author refers to "heat-as-a-substance" numerous times and refers to entropy/caloric. The caloric theory is obsolete, and your obstinance about using this vocabulary is misleading at best and harmful at worst.

Your reluctance to introduce energy until absolutely necessary seems like a strange choice, but I won't begrudge anyone their preferences. And your discuss of "linear and rotational motion" as "forces of nature" is absolutely misleading--I have enough experience teaching physics to be terribly familiar with student tendencies to mix up velocity and momentum and force, so I am not enthusiastic about making up new terminology like "forces of nature" that will only cause confusion and complication later in education. But your discussion of heat as a substance is incorrect. You may be able to include enough caveats/clarifying statements to discuss what it is that you're trying to get at, but while these extraordinarily misleading claims are present I cannot endorse publication as is.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your revision and also the explanations respectively the comments on my remarks. The article gained in clearness. I still would be interested in some empirical facts concerning a long-term development of the knowledge of the pupils. However, I learned that this is not your focus.

Author Response

No changes made.

Reviewer 3 Report

It is unfortunate that you cannot work with this review. I will clarify that I have no issue with the academic content--Embodied
Simulations and Forces-of-Nature Theater. The issue is not with the content, it is with the presentation.

If you would like to keep the style the same in your manuscript, that is your prerogative. I feel your writing style is not very clear; if your goal is to communicate clearly with your audience, then write more directly and with less repetition. 

If you would like to unify certain ideas under your organizational schema (perhaps at the expense of clarity), this is also your choice. 

But on the third point your rebuttal is inadequate. You cited historical sources in favor of your "caloric". One of the sources you cited is pretty clearly one of the authors of this manuscript. Just because you have used caloric before does not mean it is in standard usage. Your refusal to work on this suggestion does not come across as a principled stand. If this caloric language is either cleaned up significantly or removed, any other criticisms I have are stylistic.

Author Response

Thank you for your reply.

Regarding the comment that "[using caloric] is not in standard usage,” we have decided to replace “caloric” with entropy throughout the text and figures, and add a new Footnote 2 explaining the issues and what is at stake for understanding thermal processes.

We sincerely hope that this makes the text more easily readable and acceptable for physicists using traditional equilibrium thermodynamics.