|
Untitled Document
The greatest challenge facing a science teacher (I have been one for more than
a decade now) is this whole matter of the
student's intuition. On the one hand, the
existence of this intuitive understanding of
phenomenon is the sign of an active mind
that is constructing a coherent picture of
the world. On the other hand, as pointed
out by David Moody, these intuitive
constructions are contrary to a scientific
understanding of the world.
Further, it is easily observed that these
notions survive science teaching very, very
effectively. An anecdote from my own
experience illustrates this rather well. One
evening at a friend's home, there was an
informal gathering of about a dozen people
- all of them with substantial university
degrees, including two Ph.Ds in the 'hard'
physical sciences. My friend, the host, posed
the question, 'Where does the moon rise?'
There was actually visible panic and all
kinds of answers-including, the moon
doesn't rise at all - were ventured. There
were just two people who could say with
certainty that all celestial objects would
'rise' in the east, 'rising' and 'setting' being
apparent manifestations of the rotation of
the Earth.
When science is taught without any
intuitive reference to the notions that
already exist in the mind of the student, it
leads to the fragmentation of the mind and
the two seldom meet, and the matter is left
unresolved. In time, the intuitive
expression resurfaces and dominates
responses. This seems quite similar to the
relationship between one's conditioning
and a philosophical explanation. If one
considers the nature of the self and the
insight that K offers-the self is put
together by thought-this insight is
counter-intuitive. The self seems to be all pervasive
and the centre which controls the
person. The only way out is careful
observation. Reason and intellectual
argument have at best the value of being
pointers and starting points of an inquiry
led by the actual observation of wha.t is. It
is perhaps in the alertness and openness of
observation that insight happens.
Understanding K verbally, intellectually
leads at best to a conflict of becoming which
might lead to outward order of a limited
kind. It leaves the core of one's being
untouched.
At The School, the science curriculum
of class V has over the last couple of years,
attempted to provide a series of counter-intuitive
'insights' . The aim has been twofold.
First, to bring to the collective
consciousness of the group, common
aspects of an intuitive picture of the
phenomenon; then, through designed experiments and observations, to help
them see the phenomenon in a whole new
way.
To take some examples of misconceptions
connected with flotation:
- Heavy objects sink. So, a log weighing
one ton would sink. (This reflects a
lack of appreciation of the notion of
density. )
- Iron will always sink. (This reflects a
conditioning of always thinking of
water as a medium. Further, there is
no appreciation of the density of the
medium as a factor.)
The first task of the teacher in the
approach that is being attempted is to ask
the students to visualise the result of a
simple experiment, thereby bringing to the
surface that which exists in the
consciousness of the students.
To illustrate this point, we consider the
relation between time-period and the
amplitude of oscillation of a simple
pendulum. Children have a wide
experience of the pendulum from clocks
to swings in playgrounds. Children are
asked the question, 'Will the time taken by
the pendulum to complete one full
oscillation vary with the amplitude?' The
question of course has to be put without
anytechnical terms, in ordinary language.
The almost universal answer is an
affirmation.The teacher makes an effort to
help students articulate clearly their 'naive'
picture by asking the students to share the
way they arrived at the answer. Typically,
the idea that is in the mind is that the
distance that the pendulum traverses is
more if amplitude is more, therefore it
takes more time. No attempt is made to
correct it at this point. This phase is an
attempt to help them articulate clearly the
common sense picture. It is a boon that
there is often a great deal of commonality
in the notions that different children have
about phenomena. (This led a colleague
to remark that children left to themselves
will tend to discover an Aristotelian world
view.) This picture is then subject to the
test of clear observation. Sometimes, even
in the articulation of 'what is', children
start to think afresh. I have seen students
pointing out: 'the greater the amplitude,
the greater the height from which the
pendulum is released and therefore the
greater the speed; this compensates for the
longer distance'. This is even before any
experimentation and systematic observation
takes place. The intention of the whole
exercise is to help the child move to a new
perception of the phenomenon, a new
location.
A new location - perhaps that's the
rub. The new picture of reality is still a
picture. It becomes the basis for further
conceptualization. The context for another
insight. There does not seem to be anything
fundamental in the whole process.
Nonetheless, an insight curriculum will
keep the mind open and aware of the fact
that the world has depth - a depth that is
accessible only on keen observation.
|
