Science explanations by non scientists (RE: Explanation of electricity)

[John Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>]

The same thing happens when psychologist/educators try to explain science.
They assume that a knowledge of psychology equips them to adequately teach
science or to adequately teach teachers.  I recently attended an all day
workshop by a well known authority on multiple intelligences.  His
presentation on how this idea came about was coherent and interesting.
However when he then tried to apply it to teaching it was a disaster.

He used analogies designed to appeal to the various intelligences about
Boyle's law.  First he presented the formal written definition.  OK, this
was actually very good because it showed how formal definitions at the
beginning of a lesson do not help students understand anything.  He then
proceeded to use the analogy of squeezing a boil which subsequently pops.
This analogy was completely wrong because Boyle's law applies to gasses and
not to liquids.  Then he had people put air in their cheeks and squeeze one
cheek.  They were supposed to notice the change in volume, but in reality
all that happened was the air just moved to the other cheek.  Most of the
rest of the analogies were actually just means to memorize results, such as
a musical memorization jingle which purported to appeal to the "musical
intelligence".  Along the way he made a number of verbal statements which
would set up misconceptions in student's minds.  Most of the teaching
examples seemed to be aimed at achieving just memorization of Boyle's law
and in particular associating the name Boyle with an explanation.

Apparently he had not read any of the science education research which shows
that students must explore first, then get the definition of the term, and
finally do applications (AKA the learning cycle).  In addition students need
multiple representations of the idea (graphs, descriptions, pictures,
equations).  While this latter idea does occur somewhat in multiple
intelligence theory, there are no musical representations of Boyle's law.
However the multiple intelligences can be hit by appropriate applications
involving things such as musical production, biological systems ...

He did not show any pre and posttest data to justify his type of teaching.
The jury is no longer out.  The greatest gains in learning occur when the
curriculum material has been designed by actual content
specialists/practicing teachers in collaboration with researchers.  A good
example of this is PER.  The greatest gain is not achieved by outsiders to
the field.  In addition the speaker was not aware of the research that shows
that even two days of inservice training has no effect on teaching or
learning, but that just giving the teachers appropriate curriculum material
does have a significant effect.  An example of this is that Real Time
Physics Labs produce higher gain even in the hands of novice teachers.

The lecturer also made reference to "The Scientific Method", but when I
privately talked to him he admitted that he knew there was no such thing.  I
gave him some references to good science education research that he was not
aware of, and he said he would look at it.  I also asked if there were any
pre and posttest data to justify this type of teaching, but he did not
volunteer any.  I suspect that any gain that he sees is probably low
compared to PER, and that the gain is probably on just memorization
questions.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> Well, Ludwik, in the US most precollege students take 12 years of
> English (13 if they go to kindergarten).  Those same children
> (historically) take *physics* less than one year on the average.  No
> matter how you quibble about the kids that take more science, they
> are *not* the poets.
>
> Nonetheless, your point is well taken.  Poets *know they don't
> understand science*, while scientists frequently *think they
> understand poetry*.  Hmmm, smile, Karl
>
> > Is a typical "poet" asked to explain science better
> > than a typical scientist asked to compose poetry?
> >
> > On Friday, Aug 15, 2003, QUIST, OREN exposed this sample:
> >
> > >  It states, "Force - such as falling water or expanding steam - is
> > >  converted to electric charge, which electrons carry through wires."
>
> --
> Dr. Karl I. Trappe                      Desk (512) 471-4152/471-1823
> Lecture Demonstration Office            Office (512) 471-5411
> Physics Department, Mail Stop C-1600    Home (512) 264-1616
> The University of Texas at Austin
>   Austin, Texas 78712-1081