They have fled. On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nick - > > Interesting paper... I've only skimmed it, but it does attend to the > intersection of a few of my projects and will spend a little more time with > it... it lead me to some other interesting collateral material such as: > http://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/10-1/ess_laszlo.pdf > > I'm curious if Bruce or Ruth have anything to say on this topic... I'm not > sure if they are still on this list or if they fled exclusively to > WedTech? Bruce related to me at roughly a year ago, his reasons for > believing that the "hydraulic flow" metaphor for dc circuits was flawed. > He had a simulation which demonstrated some inconsistencies between his > model of electrons (and holes?) moving in a conductor diverged from water > molecules moving in piping. I seem to remember that his distinction was > compelling, but *still* probably not relevant to the novice learning basic > electrical circuits. > > This opens the question of how we work with knowledge and start simple > enough to understand easily, but then eventually graduate to a more > complete model of the phenomena in question? > > This article makes the distinction well, but I don't see it offering a > methodology or even insight into how to evolve one's understanding from > novice to expert... how to manage the series of metaphors (or perhaps, > series of levels of sophistication in a common overarching metaphor from > which the others are derived or inherit from?) I have in fact been > interested for some time about the relationship of Alexanders' "Pattern > Languages" (which is where the GO4 drew the inspiration for their "Design > Patterns" ca 1993?), Inheritence in Object Oriented Programming, and > Conceptual Metaphors. > > - Steve > > Colleagues, > > > > As groups dedicated conversations across many boundaries of expertise, I > thought this article might interest you. It can be found at > > > > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272997521_Varying_Use_of_Conceptual_Metaphors_across_Levels_of_Expertise_in_Thermodynamics?showFulltext=true > > > > One of its authors, Tamer Amin, was a Clark Phd who worked on how students > understand heat and light and natural selection. > > > > Here is the abstract: > > > > Many studies have previously focused on how people with different levels > of expertise solve physics problems. In early work, focus was on > characterizing differences between experts and novices and a key finding > was the central role that propositionally expressed principles and laws > play in expert, but not novice, problem solving. A more recent line of > research has focused on characterizing continuity between experts and > novices at the level of non-propositional knowledge structures and > processes such as image-schemas, imagistic simulation and analogical > reasoning. This study contributes to an emerging literature addressing the > coordination of both propositional and non-propositional knowledge > structures and processes in the development of expertise. Specifically, in > this paper we compare problem solving across two levels of expertise – > undergraduate students of chemistry and PhD students in physical chemistry > – identifying differences in how conceptual metaphors are used (or not) to > coordinate propositional and non-propositional knowledge structures in the > context of solving problems on entropy. It is hypothesized that the > acquisition of expertise involves learning to coordinate the use of > conceptual metaphors to interpret propositional (linguistic and > mathematical) knowledge and apply it to specific problem situations. > Moreover, we suggest that with increasing expertise, the use of conceptual > metaphors involves a greater degree of subjective engagement with physical > entities and processes. Implications for research on learning and > instructional practice are discussed. > > > > As you all know, I have taken the greatest pleasure in teasing my “hard” > science colleagues about their use of psychological terms of art such as > “attraction, wanting, etc.” to articulate physical concepts. I think Amin > and his collaborators are going to tell us that those metaphors ain’t for > nuthin’. > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
