Tag: 131

Thoughts on “Using Framing as a Lens to Understand Context Effects on Expert Reasoning”

After listening to this paper, a few things are interesting right out of the gate:

  1. The resource model of cognition hasn’t really propagated to biology yet.
  2. Two they point out that experts have learned to reason across disciplines using cross-cutting concepts. Could it possibly be that experts have gained this ability because they were exposed to it in different contexts? I don’t think this is true but it’s worth thinking about the fact that it could possibly be.
  3. I like the idea of engineers as existing in the middle of the idealized/real-example continuum with physics on the idealized end and biology on the other.

Teaching the “Energy Story” Next Time

As described in the page on my Physics 131, I like to present content in terms of concepts first. I want students to think conceptually and then move to translating that story to mathematics. I refined this process this past semester and next time, I want energy the energy story to be presented thus:

  • What types of energy do you have at the beginning/end?
  • Are the totals the same or did some come in or out?
  • What came in or out?

In general, ask them to structure it as:

  • Initial energies
    • What went in/out and as heat/work.
      • Final Energies

Also, as we did on the forces unit: go through all the problems for the unit doing just the story first. Ask them to keep their work. Then cycle back through and solve.

Reflecting on an observation of 2nd and 3rd year life-science students’ definitions of scientific models

This semester, Physics 131 is back to a 75-mintue twice-a-week schedule after some the return to in-person learning necessitated experimentation with 50-minute thrice-a-week versions, and we have confirmed what was stated in Michaelsen et al’s book on Team Based Learning: longer course sessions are vastly superior in this mode. Students have more time to explore more problems without interruption. This was manifest yesterday when I had more time to let students explore the definition of a scientific model, the results of which yielded some interesting insights.

Continue reading Reflecting on an observation of 2nd and 3rd year life-science students’ definitions of scientific models

An Important Paper on Math-As-Language

Redish, Edward F., and Eric Kuo. “Language of Physics, Language of Math: Disciplinary Culture and Dynamic Epistemology.” Science & Education 24, no. 5 (July 1, 2015): 561–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9749-7.

I recently finished this paper on the differences in the use of mathematics between physics and mathematics as viewed from a linguistics/semantics standpoint and it was quite informative. Often folks discussing undergraduate curricula (including here at UMass Amherst) speak of the need to simply require physics majors to take more math courses. This paper provides an interesting counter perspective. This paper may also be an interesting addition to P691G.

I also think that this paper, along with several of the references therein that I would like to read, has further reinforced my idea that the prep for 131 should be reconsidered. I really think that it should be, to quote the paper, “without the equations.” I will, of course, keep the mathematical reviews as needed because we will do math but a strong conceptual stance in preparation is the way to go. In class, we can then focus on the translation to mathematics as an explicit skill.

Yesterday, I met with Theresa Austin, of the College of Education’s Language Literacy, and Culture program, and Adena Calden of the Department of Mathematics, about this issue. The goal being to determine what insights from the teaching of English to ESL students could perhaps be employed to teach my students their second language of mathematics. The conversation was productive. In particular, she provided an excellent procedure for the in-class translation exercise:

  1. Let students try to translate the physical concept themselves into mathematical language.
  2. Allow them to collaborate as a team to form a communal definition.
  3. Have each team write their definitions on the whiteboards.
  4. Do a gallery walk activity involving critique and voting for the best one.

For step 4, I will need to think more about how to facilitate constructive criticism. Perhaps Chris Ertl, who has done some neat work on poster sessions for the labs, can provide some good suggestions.

A Quote that I think Applies to the Different Problem Solving Schemas of Novice and Expert Physicists

“In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert’s there are few”

Shunryu Suzuki

While this quote is meant to encourage folks to keep the sense of open mindedness in the face of advancing knowledge, I think an alternative interpretation works well for physics instruction.

As Chi et al discuss in their work1, novice and expert physics students approach analyzing problems in wildly different ways:

  • Novices tend to focus on the surface features of the problem: ramps, friction, pulleys, ropes, etc. In their “beginner’s mind” these are all simply different types of problems – there are “ramp problems,” “friction problems,” etc.
  • In the “expert’s mind,” however, there are a lot fewer options: all problems begin from a small set of universal principles: Newton’s Laws, Conservation of Energy, etc.

Perhaps this quote can help students cement their knowledge?

Footnotes
  1. Chi, Michelene T. H., Paul J. Feltovich, and Robert Glaser. “Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices*.” Cognitive Science 5, no. 2 (April 1, 1981): 121–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2.