Re: what is understanding?

[LUDWIK KOWALSKI <kowalskil@alpha.montclair.edu>]

Mon, 7 Jul 1997 JACK L. URETSKY wrote:

> If you cannot tell me the meaning of the phrase "state of mind", how can 
> I possibly answer your question?

My wife, who is a linguist and a psychologist, tells me that the term 
"state of mind" is already used to describe cheerfulness, optimism,
anxiety, etc. Would it be better to replace "state of mind" with 
"cognitive grasp", as she suggested? Another vague term to describe
a vague concept.

In an earlier message Jack wrote:

> I did not understand your message. In particular I did not understand 
> the meaning of "state of mind", "novel", "validly discuss" and "expert".

What about "fear" or "happiness"? Are these terms clear to you? We can
recognize these "modes of being" in ourselves and in others (?) but we
will have a hard time defining them precisely. I would leave this task to
physiologists. Fortunately we can often benefit from using words which 
are defined imprecisely, especially when there is no disagreement about
them.

As a physics teacher I am satisfied with the "definition" of understanding 
presented by Gregg Swackhammer. He said:

     "UNDERSTANDING is attained  when a student can confront a novel
      situation and validly discuss it (at length) with an expert."

I would like this thread to coninue. Too bad that many people are away now 
when this important topic is discussed. 
                                             Ludwik Kowalski
 ***********************************************************************
 P.S. Here are extracts from three recent contributions:

 1) Can the process of understanding be imposed by force? Or should we, 
    teachers, wait for it to occur spontaneously? The term "wait" stands 
    for "teach without blaming ourselves for the lack of understanding"

 2) If my own experience is any indication, understanding came very late 
    in the process. Much of what I now understand about physics I gained 
    after I started teaching. Perhaps understanding is more than we should 
    reasonably expect of students, esp. at the introductory level. A 
    successful teacher ... has, for many years held that students should 
    learn how to solve the problems first, understanding will come later. 
    While I don't teach based on that proposition, I often think that I 
    ought to. Every year, it seems to me that I end up understanding
    more new things than my students ever do, and maybe that is the way
    it should be.

 3) We, who teach the subject and deal with the theory every day, ought 
    to "understand" more as time goes by. But what about those who will 
    never take another course. Should we write them off as unworthy of our 
    time? We keep telling students that "some day they may need this 
    knowledge" when, in fact, for the majority of them that day will never 
    come. Understanding is not a black or white matter; it is only shades 
    of gray. 
    ********************************************************************