Re: [Phys-l] More Stupidity in state exams

["Dr. Keith S. Taber" <kst24@cam.ac.uk>]

At 18:08 -0500 9/8/11, John Clement wrote:
> ...It is not being pedantic...The energy rich 
> terminology is not understood by students to 
> mean that the
> energy is higher compared to other 
> bonds...Language does matter in that it 
> telegraphs analogies to students and
> sometimes inappropriate analogies.

I of course agree with all of this John (with one 
reservation *), and was not defending the use of 
this language, just looking to explain why it 
still seems to happen despite it having been 
raised as an alternative conception decades ago. 
I suspect on this list you are preaching to the 
converted - but how do you persuade biologists 
and biology educators?

(* with some reservations about chem ed research, 
which is a flourishing field: I think there are 
pockets of stronger and weaker practice in all 
areas of science teaching, and as you know 
practice does not always reflect research.)



At 20:58 -0600 9/8/11, William Robertson wrote:
> The major problem with the "shorthand" explanation is that it simply
> does not make sense....

Again I agree entirely in principle, but with a 
big BUT. In practice we all operate with routines 
and heuristics in some areas where we either 
never knew or can no longer recall why these 
work. When we do this in areas well away from our 
professional focus it probably does not matter. 
Whilst I'd love everyone to have some 
understanding of the LASARs in a CD player, I 
have to admit that the average consumer buying 
CDs (well I still do) can probably function as a 
use of a CD player perfectly well seeing it as a 
black box. There are myriad other examples.

Now that is not the same as a science (biology) 
teacher being prepared to use misleading 
shorthand when teaching science 
(physics/chemistry) as there one would hope for 
professional concern for both good science and 
sound pedagogy. So I am not disagreeing with Bill 
or John about what SHOULD be the case, but just 
wondering about why we still have this problem 
when it has been well known for such a long time.

My hypothesis is that in terms of the central 
concerns of biologists this is just an idea that 
'works' at the level at which it is used in the 
subject, and in terms of the expected level of 
explanations required. If so then (a) this is sad 
as one of the strengths of science is its search 
for key ideas that can be applied across all 
contexts, and fragmented attitudes to curriculum 
undermines students learning about this aspects 
of the NoS; but (b) it might explain why the 
biology education community has apparently failed 
to act on complaints about this for years.

I think it is important to try and understand the 
causes of a problem if you want to address it. In 
the case of many individual biology teachers it 
may well be they hold the alternative conception. 
But the knowledge to address this is there within 
the community if teacher trainers wished to 
address this.

A second if related hypothesis (presented to be 
shot down in flames!) is about how models are 
understood in the sciences. In chemistry there 
are many concepts that are regularly used by 
students, teachers and indeed professional 
chemists which are somewhat anachronistic, and 
which in principle should have been superceded by 
the advance of research. Yet they are still used 
because at some level (i.e. in terms of current 
needs for many chemical tasks) they work (and are 
often a lot easier to understand than the current 
theories). Indeed it has been argued that most 
chemists operate with something which has been 
referred to as a 'folk molecular theory' (FMT), 
which although no longer the most sophisticated 
(scientifically accurate?) way of understanding 
the phenomena available,

"has been especially useful in guiding research 
in chemistry. If the quality of a theoretical 
model could be judged by the range of different 
problems it can deal with, or by the number of 
sound technological applications it has brought 
about, then it would be difficult to find, in the 
whole realm of the experimental sciences, a model 
better than FMT." p.132

Sánchez Gómez, P. J., & Martín, F. (2003).
Quantum versus 'classical' chemistry in 
university chemistry education: A case study of 
the role of history in thinking the curriculum.
Chemistry Education: Research & Practice, 4(2), 131-148.

But perhaps I should ask some biologists rather than throw out conjectures?

Keith


> John M. Clement
> Houston, TX
>
> >  The terminology 'energy-rich phosphate bonds'is not helpful in this
> >  regard, but perhaps 'easily-disrupted-by-energy phosphate bonds' does
> >  not have quite the same ring? Of course, energy does tend to be given
> >  out when these bonds break (in the context of the whole reaction
> >  going on), and I think some biologists feel it is therefore being
> >  pedantic to point out that like any bond energy is required to break
> >  them. I've rather come to the view that whilst this is an alternative
> >  conception acquired by students, for some of the biologists this is
> >  more a different formalism reflecting their own disciplinary concerns
> >  and priorities rather than an actual misunderstanding of the science
> >  (just as some chemistry teachers seem to think that explaining
> >  patterns in successive atomic ionisation energies in terms of the
> >  sharing out of nuclear force is fine as it's a useful heuristic that
> >  generally works).
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


--
Dr. Keith S. Taber

http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/staff/taber.html
https://camtools.cam.ac.uk/access/wiki/site/~kst24/index.html

Author: Progressing Science Education - 
Constructing the Scientific Research Programme 
into the Contingent Nature of Learning Science 
(Springer: 2009)

University Senior Lecturer in Science Education

Science Education Centre
University of Cambridge Faculty of Education
184 Hills Road
Cambridge CB2 8PQ
United Kingdom

to join an electronic discussion list on
learning in science
please visit
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts