I'm sure you are already aware of this paper by Tamer Amin. I wanted to post about it anyway. The thing is, I'm not even through with it, yet, but I felt this urge that I have to share my opinion about it. This paper just nails it! In my opinion, Amin does what Swackhamer tried but never really achieved... He presents a very nice review of physics education research on the concept of energy. Then he does a proper analysis of the naïve and scientific concepts of energy, grounded in conceptual metaphor research (by Lakoff and Johnson), and talks a little bit about conceptual change and pedagogical implications. I am tempted to call this paper THE paper on energy...
But judge for yourself: Here or if you can't download the article there, try this.
ABSTRACT:
This paper argues that the metaphorical representation of concepts and the appropriation of language-based construals can be hypothesized as additional sources of conceptual change alongside those previously proposed. Analyses of construals implicit in the lay and scientific use of the noun energy from the perspective of the theory of conceptual metaphor are summarized. The experientially grounded metaphorical construals identified in both uses help conceptualize the shift from the concrete, naïve to the abstract, scientific understanding of energy. The case of the concept of energy motivates the more general hypothesis that an important part of learning a highly abstract (even mathematical) concept is the appropriation of experientially grounded metaphorical construals implicit in scientific discourse. Pedagogical implications of this proposal are discussed.
I wasn't aware of this paper... reading it now.
ReplyDeleteFrom page 26 of the draft pdf:
ReplyDeleteOne difficulty is that it is not appropriate to
interpret energy transformations in terms of a notion of substance that maintains some integrity across these transformations.
Why the fudge not? What am I missing? This statement gets no elaboration and strikes me as purely judgmental and not at all descriptive. Me feel angry!!... I suppose we must read the source (Duit, 1987).
The section:
ReplyDeleteConceptual Metaphor Analysis of the Lay
and Scientific Concept of Energy
is some work that I had sort of sketched out in my head. It's weird to see it written down by someone else.
OK, I understand now why Amin did not elaborate (in my second comment): Amin later (p. 39) argues against it. So we agree, I think. But it was weird and disorienting when it was brought up.
ReplyDeleteI've uploaded the Duit paper here.
ReplyDeleteI read this paper before, and as far as I can tell, Duit only acknowledges problems with the "matter-like" concept when it comes to special relativistics. But I might be wrong and missed the point...
why so much emphasis on language? Amin knows a little about gesture (enough to make one reference to it). No returns when searching on "semiotic" or "goodwin" though.
ReplyDeleteMy summary of the pedagogical implications:
ReplyDelete(1) Use the language of conceptual metaphors when identifying learning objectives.
(2) Don't fall into the surface-features trap when identifying metaphors.
(3) Use conceptual metaphors to design representations. (Note that we the instructors design the representations.)
(4) Use master images to make small list of schemata explicit for students.
(5) Use conceptual metaphor to predict student difficulties.
I still think the linguistic emphasis is frosting (though to be fair, Amin's data were linguistic), and that the advice extends to other semiotic fields as well. There are even ways that Amin makes this point, though perhaps unwittingly: the idea that conceptual metaphor is shown in diagrams shows that the metaphor is conceptual, and not linguistic. I see L&J as just preferring to provide a lot of linguistic evidence, presumably since one of them is a linguist. Overall, I am pleased with the paper and not disappointed that it did too much of our work for us, as I feared it might. Thanks, Benedikt!
p.s. Don't nobody get the wrong idea about how long it takes me to read something. I have tonsillitis and had to take a major siesta under the tree. I felt like a dying dog.
Duit apparently did not say it was "inappropriate" but merely "unusual" to give energy form.
ReplyDeleteIt requires a few properties to be attributed to the 'substance' energy which would be unusual in any 'normal' substance. This substance occurs in very different forms, for example, and transforms from one to the other in the course of processes.
As far as I can tell, this is all Duit said, and Amin misinterpreted it, but neither of them elaborated on it. In other words, it remains to be shown that this is, in fact, a difficulty for students when learning a quasi-material concept of energy. The quotation from Helm points out a philosophical difficulty, but within a philosophy in which the ideal of a rigid ontology is assumed.