Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] analogies



One does not have to "think" that we learn by analogy, as there is strong
evidence from studies that show this. Read the papers by John J. Clement,
U. Mass Amherst published in JRST and other journals. The use of analogies
has been studied. But as to the "only learn", then how do babies learn?

After all if you look at the research literature for information about
physics, why not also look at it for information about teaching and
learning. There is a fair amount of literature on this subject. Some of
the findings may be counterintuitive, just as Newton's third law is
counterintuitive to most students.

John M. Clement (Not related to John J.)
Houston, TX


On 11/30/2007 02:02 PM, Dan MacIsaac wrote:

Actually, I think we only learn new concepts by approximate
similarities or analogy.

Agreed.

I think a perfect analogy would be a
tautology, and I see NO pedagogical power in tautology;
therefore learning by analogy may be inescapable :^)

That's an interesting point. I'm not sure I've ever heard
it made quite so pointedly.

RPF wasn't shy about using analogies. He even had an analogy
for knowledge itself. He said it was like a grand tapestry,
and if you didn't know something, it was like a hole in the
tapestry. He emphasized that there were always multiple
ways of figuring something out: You could repair the hole
by weaving your way down from the top, or up from the bottom,
or in from the sides.

My twist on this idea is that more often than not, you wind
up weaving your way in vertically *and* horizontally. I even
have a picture of this:

The goal is to explain the idea of a _blue triangle_ to
someone who has never seen one. We do that by calling
attention to the space in the middle of this figure:
http://www.av8n.com/physics/img48/blue-triangle.png

You can see there is a big role for imperfect analogies.

The middle is where the blue triangle lives. It is not
perfectly analogous to the other blue things, and it is
not perfectly analogous to the other triangular things,
but if you weave multiple analogies together you can
create quite a strong fabric.

Getting excited about the fact that analogies aren't identical
seems a waste of time to me. Knowing the domain and range of
analogies, where they work and where they do not seems
to the the important idea.

Yes indeed.

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l