The PaperCast is quiet right now as I am listening to the audio book of Life as No One Knows It by Sara Imari Walker. This is a very interesting book which explores the concept of Assembly Theory: a new conceptual paradigm for physics in which the lineages of objects takes center stage. In effect, it folds the idea of evolution into physics. I am not yet sure what I think. However, I do want to run an Honors seminar around this book – ideally including students from both my 132 and my quantum II class. The motivation for such a seminar would be an investigation on how physics is a living discipline and that we may not even yet have the “final” paradigm. I am also interested because Prof. Walker seems a physicist who is very fluent in the cultural ways of the life sciences, which is also of interest to me.
Tag: books and articles
Francis Bacon as Applied to Physics 131
I just finished listening to a podcast lecture about Francis Bacon and his ideas on philosophy of science in the Renaissance. His distinction on the importance of inductive reasoning as the foundation of science as opposed to the concept of deductive reasoning that was so critical to the Scholastic epistemology got me thinking about how we teach physics and what part of physics education might be best for lecture or for lab. In the lecture part of my class, we use a deductive method: students are given facts and then asked to apply those general rules like Newton’s laws to specific situations and use that deductive reasoning to gain insight of specific situations. This is someone analogous to Medieval natural philosophy: in medieval natural philosophy the axioms and conclusions of figures such as Aristotle or taken as being axiomatically true and only deductive reasoning was required to apply those fundamental Universal Concepts to particular situations.
Now, of course, the concepts that I’m teaching in my physics class, such as Newtonian mechanics and the like, are grounded in inductive approaches hypotheses and experimental verification but they’re presented to my students as being true axioms that they have to apply deductively. However, it’s clearly important for students scientific education that they also become familiar and adept at the inductive reasoning that is truly the philosophical underpinning of modern science. Where should students get this understanding, and this experience?
My thought after listening to the series of lectures, was that perhaps this is what the lab is fundamentally for in a physics class: the lab provides an excellent environment for students to engage in these inductive processes of model building making predictions testing predictions falsifying claim these types of skills. Now, we already do a lot of this in the 131 labs that Chris Ertl has been developing. However, I feel that this insight into the contrast between inductive and deductive approaches provides a new lens through which we can look at the different types of instruction that occur in a lecture and lab portions of a Physics course. Moreover, it gives us an opportunity to actually talk about these differences in logical approaches with our students and do some of that, what I consider to be critically important, instruction into the fundamental philosophy of science.
From my collaborations with colleagues in the integrated introductory life science Mutual mentoring group one thing that became quickly apparent, was that throughout introductory biology lab introductory physics lab and introductory chemistry lab no one was explicitly teaching the scientific method. Nor, were they teaching some of the fundamentals of the philosophy of science. In contrast, this framework of thinking about lecture as essentially deductive instruction and lab as inductive instruction provides an excellent basis from which to actually begin talking about these important ideas regarding the philosophy of science. It makes that transition natural. I’m curious, as I begin to develop labs for our first semester majors for fall 2024, to think about this framework. Moreover, I would love to talk about this with somebody at the upcoming American Association of physics teachers meeting in Boston this summer to get additional insights. Particularly, from those folks who have spent careers thinking about effective methods for Laboratory instruction.
In addition to this particular new perspective on what could potentially be the fundamental logical underpinnings differentiating lecture versus lab instruction, this entire experience has also added to my growing appreciation of the importance for all teachers to read widely. Only by reading across disciplines do we get these new ideas and new perspectives of ways to approach and think about are disciplinary based instruction. Moreover, I think that those of us who are teaching faculty are in a unique position to this trans-disciplinary approach. We are not subject to the “publish or perish” pressures that so many of our tenured colleagues are subject to. We often have the freedom to read and think a little more broadly within our official positions. In short, it’s another experience in intellectual humility that other disciplines, in this case the history of philosophy, can provide insights that inform science instruction.
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:
- Let students try to translate the physical concept themselves into mathematical language.
- Allow them to collaborate as a team to form a communal definition.
- Have each team write their definitions on the whiteboards.
- 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.
How to manage groups more efficiently – from “Get Better Faster”
I am currently reading a book entitled Get Better Faster: A 90-Day Plan for Coaching New Teachers by Paul Bambrick-Santoyo. While a more detailed review will come later, there is one point that is of particular interest. The author suggests that, when monitoring student work, the monitors (in my case myself and the TAs) should go to the fastest groups first. At first glance, this seems counterintuitive: shouldn’t the in-class assistants spend the most time with those groups who struggle the most? Bambrick-Santoyo, however, points out that going to the fastest groups first has two benefits:
- The in-class assistants get a good sense of where the students are likely to struggle and what alternative conceptions students have. While I always encourage my TAs to work the problems in advance and while we discuss them in our weekly meetings, these efforts are not always sufficient. By attending to the fastest groups first, TAs in particular get a in-the-trenches sense of where students are likely to stumble.
- Attending to the fastest groups first gives those groups who need a little more time the time they need to progress to the point where they are in a position to ask a question or get feedback.
Again, I am sure there will be more to come from this book, but I wanted to share that out.
A Veritasium Video on the Learning Styles Myth
This video, from one of my favorite educational YouTube channels, takes on the learning styles myth. I have found this myth to be very harmful in my own classes: students end up having a fixed mindset about their ability to learn physics for which they use the learning styles myth as a support/excuse. I really wish that we could do away with this myth and present all information in all the modalities that support that type of information to help all learners do their best.