Re: What Flows?

["Dewey Dykstra, Jr." <dykstrad@varney.idbsu.edu>]

> At 10:10 PM 9/10/96 -0500, you wrote:
> > While I recognize this at the heart of what Jim and Leigh are arguing
> > against, let me quote from College Physics by Serway & Faughn:
> >
> > "Heat (or thermal energy) is now defined as energy that is transferred
> > between a system and its environment because of a temperature difference
> > between them."
>
> Rick, this is my main concern -- every text in the galaxy uses this
> language.  It does not make it correect -- nor does it make it
> understandable to students.  It just might mean that Serway and Faughn were
> poorly taught when they were in college.
>
> It seems to me that it is OUR responsibility to stamp this language out.
>
> Jim Green

In what I am about to say, I am not addressing Jim Green specifically, but
this note as an exemplar of many notes seen in the past urging the same
thing about different words and phenomena and all of the times before
e-mail was possible that this same sort of position has been advocated.
This approach has been advocated and practiced for many decades in my
direct experience and I expect many more before that.  It would be useful
to continue the practice if it had beneficial effect.  Is this the evidence?

It seems to me that there are several concerns here.

1.  At some particular level, it is often the case that more than one
description of a phenomenon or class of phenomena will work equally well.
Isn't it a waste of time to argue over points until we decide what level
students we are talking about and have some realistic idea what their
experience and initial conceptions are?  It is entirely possible that for
many students at the introductory level the points we argue are esoterica
with no logically necessary basis in _their_ experience with the phenomena
(including what we show them in class).  Hence, the relevance and
significance will not be meaningful at all.

Insisting that our students accept a more complicated explanation for their
experiences than their experiences (including those we provide in class)
'logically demand or support' is a kind of training which is _exactly the
opposite_ of what we wish, namely: accept this more complicated explanation
for which you can see no logical requirement because We say it is True.
So, whether they are non-science majors or they are physics majors, this,
it strikes me, is not something I, and I hope others, would ever want a
part of.

2.  Do we have _any_ justification for being so arrogant as to insist that
we are so absolutely in the possession of Truth that we can take the
responsibility of dictating language and "stamping" what we do not like
out?  The history of physics certainly does not justify such a position.

3.  Do we have _any_ evidence that the insistence on using particular words
has any significant effect on the thinking of any significant number of our
students concerning the nature of the phenomena?  This has been advocated
and practiced many times before, but one could argue that what we
accomplish is turning people off to us and our profession more than
instilling in them any of our 'Truth.'

4.  'We' seem to be talking as if by using the "Right' words, the correct
and 'True' meaning will automatically be available to all who hear them.  I
don't know of any evidence that supports this.

Just my $0.02 worth.  Just trying to understand why physics teaching is
such a spectacular failure when we try to look for conceptual change as a
result of physics teaching.

;^)

Dewey

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr.                   Phone: (208)385-3105
Professor of Physics                    Dept:  (208)385-3775
Department of Physics/SN318             Fax: (208)385-4330
Boise State University                  dykstrad@varney.idbsu.edu
1910 University Drive                   Boise Highlanders
Boise, ID 83725-1570                       novice piper
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++