Re: wrong physics explanations-misconceptions

[Joseph Bellina <jbellina@SAINTMARYS.EDU>]

I don't think we ought to get too far into a linquistic discussion of
what we mean by misconceptions, but having said that let me try a
different spin.
The points in these notes are well taken...sad to say we never teach the
truth, just what we currently believe to be true enough and
understandable by our audience...that is the way of the world.

However, given that one goal of science is to create models which
"explain" the greatest range of phenomena with the smallest number of
model axioms, we can at least rank order models by the range of
experience that developed them.  Most student misconceptions, or
whatever pc word you want to use are based on local, nonsystematic
observations leading to inferences which are valid, but only locally.

This is quite distinct from ether or the geocentric model of the
universe which were based on extensive systematic investigations and
resulting inferences.  In that sense I would not be willing to call them
misconceptions.

By the way, I am not subscribing to a simple minded notion of science.
I realize that all experiments are theory laden etc etc.  But I think my
distinction is robust enough to allow a range of views of what science
is.

Regarding respect for others, I agree that no matter whether the data
set is large or small, these models are more or less science in the
sense that they are intelligent inferences based on experiences, and
thus all deserve respectful treatment even as we attempt to separate our
students from them.

I find it very beneficial to eled teachers to tell them that we all do
science all the time...we are always building mental models as we live
our lives.  It is just that the capitol s scientific ones have a larger
and mor systematic experience base.

cheers,

joe

On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, danmacisaac wrote:

> > I would not consider the ether theory, (or even the Ptolemaic
> > astronomy) to
> > be misconceptions. At the time, it served a purpose, and it was not
> > designed
> > to mislead.
> >
> > We owe our predecessors some respect. There are some things we accept
> > now
> > that will be overturned in a few years, or a few centuries.
> ...we owe ourselves and our students some respect as well.  If we're
> continually learning better models of physics, then we may never know
> (or teach) anything but "misconceptions".  The word "misconceptions"
> implies to me that a person's thoughts are "sick" and require "cure",
> and denigrates the profound importance of students' initial conceptual
> states.  Emergent research in science and mathematics teaching suggests
> that if we want to radically improve instructional outcomes, we must
> elicit student's ideas and accommodate them in our instruction, and we
> can't do this for something we don't respect.
>
> I prefer to avoid the word "misconceptions", and attach a certain
> suspicion to the insights of those who use the word freely.  The
> phrases "learner thought" or "student thought" and "student ideas"
> usually suffice.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dan M
>
> Dan MacIsaac, Assistant Professor of Physics, SUNY Buffalo State College
> 222 SCIE BSC 1300 Elmwood Ave, Buffalo NY 14222 716-878-3802
> macisadl@buffalostate.edu http://PhysicsEd@BuffaloState.edu

Joseph J. Bellina, Jr.               574-284-4662
Associate Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556