Re: What Flows?

[palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)]

> 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.

These are the crux of the problem. I know that my own conceptual
difficulties disappeared when I made my language more precise. I
know that students who harbor the same misconceptions also seem
to be unable to understand the precise language. I believe the
phenomena are related, probably intimately, in which case they
constitute a cognitive syndrome. I believe the ailment(s) is
treatable. That is why I advocate what Jim supports. I can cure
an occasional bright student by taking her on one-on-one. I
reiterate and reformulate the same message until she catches on
to the fact that what I'm saying is important. The barrier to
understanding the concept then seems to melt (if I don't lose my
patience) and both of us are truly thrilled by the revelation. I
have not yet figured out how to achieve such miraculous
conversion on a group of students in a classroom situation, and
I also note that some students achieve the understanding without
my personal intervention, presumably by reading books (and
perhaps listening to me) and being willing to believe that what
they have to say is important. The sloppy usage acknowledged in
the texts so far quoted notwithstanding, precision is better
than resignation to sloppy thinking.

That is the nature of my evidence; I've done it. It is far from
automatic, and it sometimes requires intense interactivity. (I
have also noticed that others who understand classical
thermodynamics seem to use precise language as well.)

Leigh