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: Models Understood as Reality (was "non-transfer" of energy)




I find it comforting to discount the folks who feel they are talking
about physical reality. I remind myself that even the most righteously
indignant, in favor of their very own understanding of what is real,
what is physical, are in the end talking about models, models that
may provide a gratifying sense of connectedness to other valued
physical models: daring models, models couched in the most
recherche' maths.
I do try to be attentive when an educator tells me that one
embodiment of a model, say latent heat of fusion, or heat transfer
or dissipation, may sound traditional and reasonable at some stage,
but may become a confusion factor at some other stage.

But in the end, if a model serves its purpose now, then that is a
very pragmatic advantage that easily overwhelms suggestions from
other quarters that they have a direct line to ultimate truth.
I know, as strongly as I know anything, that they do not, and cannot.


Brian Whatcott
Altus OK Eureka!


This particular point of view is what is often considered to be the core of
"constructivist" teaching. Our understanding is individually constructed of
what we perceive as reality. We all have models that we construct which are
useful in explaining what we experience. One of the revelations of PER is
that students already have models which can be changed by suitable
experiences to be more in line with models that scientists use. At any
stage in student development the "best" models are those that students can
understand and use, and not necessarily what some individuals would say are
the most correct. With time and experience students can then develop better
models which more consistently predict physical experience.

The real trick is to be aware of the students' current models, know what
experiences can produce the necessary cognitive dissonance between their
current models and reality, and know which models they should be able to
reasonably acquire as a result. Part of this revelation is that just
telling them new models does not make them give up or modify the old models.

While there are many methods that work, there are even more that do not.
Logical thought while it may guide some of this process, can not ultimately
reveal what methods work. Only carefully crafted experiments guided by
experience and imagination can guide us.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.