In education, I personally feel that using transparent words
and phrases is very beneficial when students learn new concepts. As learners go deeper into topics, then they
can further develop their understanding of jargon in the field. But that jargon can be an impediment early
on. On one hand, we want to introduce
students to the proper (i.e. accepted, traditional, etc.) vocabulary as early as
possible. On the other hand, if the
vocabulary is an impediment to learning, then it might be best to steer clear.
The video segment below takes place during the first day (8/5/13)
of Energy 1. The task assigned to the
groups was to build a list of the “features” and “values” of energy. For instance, the example given in class was “feature”
= starting form and “values” = light, chemical, gravity, magnetic, etc. Then small groups took 15 minutes to create a
list of features and values. When the
full class resumed, features suggested were transformation, transfer, ending
value of energy, type of system, and matter effects. I have attached the group's whiteboard for reference at the end of the entry.
The following segment considers a 4 minute conversation at
Table 7. This conversation focuses on
establishing the meaning of the words transfer and transformation. When the video picks up, they have already
been talking about this for about 5 minutes and it is clear that not everyone
is on the same page. Jeff and Tanya are
the leading voices in attempting to describe the difference; Jeff is giving
pretty good examples. Cynthia is the
most vocal person in this video, loudly and clearly trying to make sure she
gets the difference between the two. In
fact, she seems to be trying to determine if transfer and transformation can
occur simultaneously.
At one point she says, “This is just a question, that you
also have transfer when you have transformation.” Later she asks, “Is our definition of
transfer broad enough to include transfer within transformation? Because I’m
having trouble making the distinction and I’m not sure if the distinction is
important.”
This conversation brings up a few different thoughts in
me. The initial one that I was pulled
toward when listening to the conversation live was: do they even know what they
are talking about? It seemed to take
some time to establish meanings for the words transfer and transformation. The fact that this conversation continued for
fifteen minutes means, to me, that there is a lack in clarity in what they are
talking about. Are the words transfer
and transformation too confusing? I see
my students tripping over these words. I
see even these teachers grappling with these words, looking for the right
meaning. Should we simplify the way we
speak? Instead of saying transformation,
could we say “form change?” Instead of
saying transfer, could we say “object change?”
The fact that both words contain “trans” may be adding an impediment
that could be avoided.
After listening to this conversation a few more times, one
gets the sense that Cynthia has a solid grasp on the difference between transfer
and transformation. What she really
wants to grasp now is whether or not both can happen simultaneously. Consider the statement: When an object is
pushed, chemical energy in the body is transformed to kinetic energy in the
object. But this sentence shows both “form
change” AND “object change.” Form goes
from chemical to kinetic. Energy moves
from body to object. Is there a temporal
order here? How important is that
ordering in understanding a given situation?
This video clearly shows the challenge inherent in simply vocalizing
this issue, much less determining an answer to the question (if there even is a
satisfactory answer). I think later
experiences with energy tracking diagrams may lead to deeper analysis of this
question.
Full video title: E1 130805 1453 T7-1
Group 7's whiteboard for this activity:
I am really glad that you brought that issue up. I am very interested in the problem of using proper terminology vs. understanding the content. I think that while it is important to teach students (or teachers) to use the formal language, there is a danger that they will start using these new "professional" word without deep understanding of what they mean. And here comes the problem - how to assess understanding and not only awareness of such a terminology?
ReplyDeleteI've been working with this energy diagrams during 4+ months now and I still have that same question: Can they happen simultaneously?
ReplyDeleteI have discussed in more than one scenario where I simply say K->T when passing from one object to the next. I have question whether it is the accurate thing to do, or if it is just because I don't have enough information to define how it happened.
I agree on your "after listening this conversation a few more times" statement. She seems to have her mind already set up on what a transfer and a transformation is (while the rest of the team works the details on a consensus). I do believe she is trying to define whether those two energy features can co-exist at the same time.
While reading your post I feel like it was written in two separate times. At the beginning you focus your attention on questioning the activity, asking if it works or not. While in the second part you present the analysis of the episode presented. I would dare to say that for me this shows kind of an evolution in your video analysis skills (?). For the first comments you present more personal concerns, while in the second you present facts and analyse it. In my personal experience, watching the videos over and over again helps me identify what is IN the video that I can show to the others. Making sure is not only my impressions, but there is actual evidence that back my statements up.
I am totally unaware if this happened in a long period of time (like starting writing in the morning and then finishing it hours later) or not. But I definitely see a contrast between those two paragraphs.