| 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] |
I don't want to read too much into a single word.
More abstract? More abstract than what?
AFAICT the core ideas of physics started out 100% abstract,
and I couldn't make them "more" abstract if I wanted to.
Perhaps more to the point, maybe this makes me the world's
biggest fool, but I don't see any way to make them less
abstract. AFAICT it's just a matter of learning to deal
with the abstractions. Yeah, energy is an abstraction.
Don't just deal with it; revel in it!
I know there are people on this list who insist that
their students are organically incapable of dealing with
abstraction, symbolism, representation, and/or imagination.
I just don't believe it. Very young kids play with dolls,
using their imagination. They know full well that the
baby doll is not a real baby; it's just a symbol, an
abstract representation of a baby.
Of course there are always a few special-ed students
who are so impaired that they are unable to play with
dolls. However, that's not what we are talking about
here. Those students shouldn't be signing up for high-
school physics, and they certainly shouldn't be dictating
the content and pace of the course.
I am aware of the research that talks about college students
who do not exhibit "formal operational" reasoning in class.
I am aware of it, but I don't give it much weight, because
it is the answer to the wrong question. My observations tell
me that students (even at the high-school level) are perfectly
capable of playing highly abstract games outside of class.
My explanation for the observations is that students have
been trained for years that independent thought, reasoning,
and creativity are not permitted on school grounds.
Meanwhile, the same kids use all sorts of creativity,
abstraction, symbolism, and imagination outside of class.
The physics book that you're using is probably 1000 pages long
and probably has 1000 errors in it.
a) At some level, this is a physics problem.
b) Suzy Q. thinks she will get burned at the stake if she calls
attention to the errors, even by ever-so-politely asking about
them. This is a huge problem, but it is not a physics problem.
Also (!) it is not due to any organic limitation in the students.
They have just been trained not to do it.
Back when I was a sorcerer's apprentice, back before I was old
enough to buy a beer, I made a bunch of money in the games industry.
I started by assuming that people had imagination ... not a few
smart people with imagination, not grown-ups with imagination,
but millions upon millions of ordinary children with imagination.
Seriously: You cannot play football using 27 little red dots and
a few pushbuttons. The "electronic" football game is an abstraction,
played out in your mind, using your imagination. The hardware with
the 27 little red dots does not play the game for you; it just
steers your imagination.
The ratio of what I designed into the game to what the player
gets out of the game is something like 1 part in 100. I reckon
teaching is the same. The ratio of what I teach to what the
student learns on his own is something like 1 part in 100.
For that matter, NFL football is a multi-billion-dollar industry,
but it's still just a game. It is a bunch of grown-ups playing
a children's game. Playing with a pigskin is not different in
principle from playing with dolls. The rules are artificial and
can be changed at any time (unlike the laws of physics). Most
importantly, even if you win, it's still just a game. It's like
chess; even if you win, it's still just a game. It's a metaphor
for combat, but it's not real combat, defending some noble ideal
by killing bad guys. It's not like being a doctor or even an
orderly in a hospital, defending good guys by killing bad germs.
It's not like building roads and bridges. It's not even like
teaching, which (if done right) makes the world a better place.
The NFL applies all sorts of window-dressing to make people
/imagine/ the game is important, but really it's just a game.
My point is that people routinely apply huge amounts of metaphor,
symbolism, imagination, and abstraction.
When people tell me their students are organically incapable of
handling abstraction, I just don't believe it. It may be a long
uphill slog to get them to apply such skills on school grounds, and
to apply them to anything more important than a mere game, and to
apply them systematically and wisely, but it can be done. You
can use non-abstract things like a pigskin or a ripple tank to
steer the imagination in a certain direction, but at the end of
the day, the abstraction is where the value is.
The idea is to cherish the abstractions. This is not just possible;
it's necessary. It's a big part of what an "education" is supposed
to be.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l