Re: What Flows?

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

Just a quickie... ;^)

> > 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.)


Ah but it is entirely possible, in fact it makes more sense to me, that one
actually makes one's language more precise once one has refined ones
conceptions (or as you might put it "once one has cleared up one's
conceptual difficulties'.)  That's what I think is going on too with one
has to exercise patience when as you put it "I reiterate and reformulate
the same message until she catches on to the fact that what I'm saying is
important." and "(if I don't lose my patience)".  Why do you have to
reiterate and reformulate if the language accomplishes the task?  It seems
to me from this and other experience, it makes more sense that language
follows thinking rather than really the other way around.

As for the problems of "converting a group" it appears to me that the
efforts of  physics learning research inspired teaching efforts do show
results which are superior to the more traditional approaches.  These
results too only seem to occur when the level of interactivity is raised
over the normal level.

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
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++