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: Thinking Level of students



One thing that I have noted is the appeal to kinesthetic models for why
students should be capable of learning particular concepts. Unfortunately
Piagetian models point out that learning in a formal sense requires
relearning what children already understand in a kinesthetic way. Piaget
observed this with small children, and it is probably also true with older
children.

As to the capability for adults or near adults to learn and understand
simple astronomy models, the evidence as JD pointed out is that many seem
not to have learned it. This is not because they are intrinsically unable,
but that they are currently not at a thinking level that makes such learning
easy. One can probably expend a large effort and eventually get them to
understand the concepts, but telling is not one of these methods. My data
seems to show that the ability to learn physics concepts appears to be
proportional to the score on Lawson's test. In addition Hake's data shows
that Active Engagement is necessary to get a large gain in conceptual
understanding of mechanics concepts. However I have seen large enough gain
in thinking skill to impact the ability to learn concepts. Again, would
anyone like to pre and posttest their students with the Lawson test?

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

John Denker Wrote
C) In particular, I am still entertaining the hypothesis that 5th-graders
are capable of learning geometric relationships. Evidence for this comes
from their ability at team sports and other activities as mentioned in my
previous note.
-- It is possible that they have to work hard to learn these.
-- It is possible that the usual passive participation in a lecture
about astronomy is insufficient.
-- It is possible that motivation is an issue.

The typical 5th grader spends many hours per week thinking about sports,
and spends not very many hours per year looking at the moon.

D) There are presumably Piagetan developmental stages involved; it may be
that less-mature persons deal with geometric relationships in one
way while
more-mature persons deal with them in another way.

E) I still think that saying typical college freshmen are "incapable" of
learning geometric relationships would be overstating the case.