Compartmentalizing an aspect of a system one doesn't understand, in order to be able to continue thinking about the other parts of the system as they relate to each other, is a sophisticated physics practice. By using the term magic, the teachers both acknowledge that they do not know the details of the process where thermal turns to light energy, and they are able to move forward in their analysis. This clearly non-scientific label (magic) also permits them to feel a level of comfort in their lack of understanding or certainty at this stage. In contrast, when blackbody radiation is mentioned in a joking voice by Allie, Julie immediately jokes that the term, blackbody radiation, might just be made up, and Debra also jokes that we could also use scary science words like anti-matter. They do not seem comfortable using scientific terms that they do not fully understand. Allie even says, "The scary thing is I think that's [blackbody radiation] the right thing, I just don't have a great explanation for why or what does that mean."
Julie sits back a minute later and reflects on words and meaning, saying, "I always felt like I didn't know science because I didn't know all the words. but the fact of the matter is you don't need to know the words." The group has an interesting 3 minute discussion on this topic. Debra offers an example of how she learned algebra by substituting fish symbols for the x and y symbols. She and Sid suggest that using the word hippopotamus or goldfish instead of science word like kinetic should be fine for instruction. Sid mentions that she tells her students scientists are pompous and make up new words for things. Allie points out that you need a balance because science terms help people communicate, and Sid also points out that on tests kids might be confronted with terms like kinetic. Debra explains that by the end of instruction students should know the vocal, but not in the beginning or middle.
In the previous clip, Julie says that the focus of a lot of science instruction is on vocabulary, and she lets out a big sigh during part of the discussion. She points out that in their discussion right now, they are confused about the meaning of heat, but in the classroom the starting place is usually vocabulary, not necessarily meaning. Right after this reflection, Julie goes on to say that she does not think she has been a very good teacher. She starts speaking into the microphone, saying "You're welcome" as if she has just provided us I-RISE people with some great data. The group makes fun of Julie getting fired or found out from this video clip being shown at a conference. Stamatis comes over and Julie tells him she feels bad about not teaching well: "I've taught them language with very little, or accidental meaning." While she makes jokes here, she also is looking right at Stamatis and says "no, seriously" and "oh my heavens", indicating she is really having an emotional response to her reflection on her teaching:
I think these clips demonstrate the power of language in both teaching and learning physics. Julie feels personally uncomfortable as a learner not knowing the meaning behind words (like heat in this scenario), but she recognizes that as a teacher she has often taught in a traditional order of vocabulary first, conceptual understanding second. Debra and Sid feel more comfortable in their teaching since they have strategies for helping students deal with terminology (Debra introduces vocab towards the end of instruction; Sid relates to students by calling scientific terms "pompous"). The teachers also recognize that for themselves creating the energy transfer diagram, using the word "magic" is their way of not falling into the trap of using words without understanding their meaning.
Are there any other groups in E2?? Because almost every video seems to show this group. Of course, I can also see why. They are an amazing quartet; so open to this process, with emotions and growth occurring left and right.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting post. My students, every year, will come up with the magic force or magic energy, when it comes to scenarios they don't understand upon immediate visual inspection. It is always said with a laugh, usually by the whole class. It's fantastic to see it here in the adult learning community. It goes beyond just a young student thing, but an ALL student thing. It seems to be a general human behavior, a strategy to deflect the feeling of not knowing something by laughing with your peers; a coping mechanism. But it also, as we see here, can serve the deeper purpose of not getting caught in unnecessary details, if those details aren't the important part of the scenario. How cool!
This makes me think that in the classroom we should respect this word "magic," and realize that there are layers of meaning to it. Just like with keeping an eye out for student metaphors, if we keep an eye out for magic, then we can have more "compassion" for our students and realize that we are receiving clues that can help us in their learning. There is so much to notice in the classroom! These observations are really helping me to see and respect that. Great post!
Some reflections:
ReplyDeleteOK, so this is where the fish came from. They have come back to that from time to time.
"Compartmentalizing an aspect of a system one doesn't understand, in order to be able to continue thinking about the other parts of the system as they relate to each other, is a sophisticated physics practice."
I very much agree that delimiting a problem and giving it a name, without having an explanation for how it works or knowing the mechanism, often is an important step in science. "Dark matter" and "dark energy" are two examples that are not yet settled in physics. It's still "magic" to mankind, not just for students.
The issue of teaching vocabulary vs. conceptual understanding/meaning is intriguing. When Julie says that her teaching has not been good, "meaning nothing", Stamatis counters: "Nonsense. Completely untrue." I think he does not say this to be comforting, but that he actually believes it. Even though there is s problem of having kids memorise vacuous phrases, e.g. "energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but only transformed", getting to hear and adopt ways of putting these words together (often guided by underlying metaphors) is a way towards conceptual understanding, grasping the meaning (i.e. the semantics side of it). Susan Carey has introduced the notion of "placeholders" for words, name tags, that have not yet come to be associated with conceptual content, but that can be used to form sentences: http://www.google.com/books?hl=sv&lr=&id=J5flK50tDaIC&oi=fnd&pg=PT3&dq=susan+carey+origin&ots=wKVJVBXYZP&sig=XxgfWJL4-5LeHJzAtvzPvCe_omY.
Such learning from language is kind of the opposite of discovery learning, but I think we need both.