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] |
It seems to me that Leigh has put his finger on an important aspect of
understanding that has not come up in this thread (at least I haven't
noticed it). We keep thinking of understanding as a binary quantity-either
you have it or you don't. This is clearly not true. Understanding is a
continuum ranging from little or none to truly profound. Most physics
teachers are somewhere in the middle and the question we need to address is
what level of understanding is appropriate for students at various levels,
and should it be evenly spread across the spectrum of topics we deal with
or is is acceptable if the depth varies from topic to topic, and if so,
which topics are the most important to put our effort into to make sure
that the understanding has passed beyond the little or none stage?
I've seen a dozen different definitions of understanding in this thread,
some better than others, but none that satisfy me. Unfortunately, I haven't
got any improvements to offer. It begins to seem to me that understanding
may be one of those words like art-we may not be able to define it but we
usually know it when we see it.
.........................................................................Students are expected to understand physics. But what is understanding?
It is state of mind, with respect to a topic or a set of topics. ...
UNDERSTANDING is attained when a student can confront a novel situation
and validly discuss it (at length) with an expert.
If understanding is not a state of mind then what is it? Students of
physics are expected to develop that state of mind in the process of
self-explanation based on what they observe, do, read about, etc. Can
this process be imposed by force? Or should we, teachers, wait for it
to occur spontaneously? The term "wait" stands for "teach without
blaiming ourselves for the lack of understanding".