Re: [Phys-L] What is understanding

["Uretsky, Jack L." <jlu@anl.gov>]

Hi-
I do not find the posting you are responding to. I might have adopted Feynman"s "What I cannot create, I do not understand." I would think that the appropriateness of Feynman's definition is highly dependent  upon the context
in which one wishes to use the word. 
                                               Regards,
                                                              Jack
    
________________________________________
From: Phys-l [phys-l-bounces@www.phys-l.org] on behalf of rjensen@ualberta.ca [rjensen@ualberta.ca]
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 6:01 PM
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] What is understanding

Your definition implies that, without mastery, there is no
understanding. I submit that there are levels to understanding, which
is illustrated by the statement, "Your understanding of thermodynamics
is well beyond what we expect of students taking first-year
chemistry."

A commonly held belief is that understanding is a progression,
exemplified by the DIKW figure
 DATA =1=> INFORMATION =2=> KNOWLEDGE =3=> WISDOM
The arrows represent (1) processing data, (2) applying information,
(3) gaining experience

> From a different perspective, only could use Bloom's taxonomy as the
stages of understanding. Is the understanding sufficient for the
learner to • remember • understand • apply • analyze • evaluate •
create • knowledge? (This applies to all of Bloom's domains.)

 Dr. Roy Jensen
(==========)-----------------------------------------¤
 Lecturer, Chemistry
 W5-19, University of Alberta
 780.248.1808




On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 15:41:12 -0400, you wrote:

> The following was posted by me thIs morning, on our university forum.
>
> Ludwk
>
> =============================================================
> Thank you Amy and David. Your posts helped me to formulate a presumably better (?) description of "understanding."
>
> Stephen Grimm < http://www.varietiesofunderstanding.com/ > wrote that human beings "have a natural desire to understand the world.  ... That desire has fueled the development of science, philosophy, and theology across time. But what exactly is understanding?"  My tentative answer to this difficult question is shown in blue below.
>
> Understanding, in a given field of knowledge, is the highest level of intellectual mastery of a subject matter.
>
> Those who claim to understand something are expected to be able, among other things, to explain the subject to themselves and to others. Acceptable ways to explain reality are different in different fields of knowledge. Ways to explain historical events, for example, are different from ways of explaining chemical reactions. That is why terms such as  "historical understanding, chemical understanding, intuitive understanding," etc. are sometimes used.
>
> =============================================================
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@www.phys-l.org
> http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@www.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l