Prof Bob says ....
There is surely nothing more universally important to the teaching/learning process, whether in chemistry or political history, than an awareness of the challenges involved in communication between two or more people.
Even in everyday conversations between friends about mundane things, we so often hear (amongst those other people, of course) the exclamation "But I thought you meant ......!" And if one more person who is giving me instructions tells me "You can't miss it" I swear that I will .... [I'm trying to think what I will do] ....
And why didn't those who designed the directional signs on our freeways do a course in communication?
"Ah" they say "I know what I meant. It was obvious to me."
So much more probable is a communication mismatch between teacher and student, having such different levels of knowledge and exposure in the subject. As well as being so much more important!
So much for the generalities .....
There is surely nothing more universally important to the teaching/learning process, whether in chemistry or political history, than an awareness of the challenges involved in communication between two or more people.
Even in everyday conversations between friends about mundane things, we so often hear (amongst those other people, of course) the exclamation "But I thought you meant ......!" And if one more person who is giving me instructions tells me "You can't miss it" I swear that I will .... [I'm trying to think what I will do] ....
And why didn't those who designed the directional signs on our freeways do a course in communication?
"Ah" they say "I know what I meant. It was obvious to me."
So much more probable is a communication mismatch between teacher and student, having such different levels of knowledge and exposure in the subject. As well as being so much more important!
So much for the generalities .....
Communication in chemistry
What a complex world is chemistry! What challenges for communication ....
In what follows, "talker" and "talkee" may refer to teacher and student(s), but not necessarily. They may be two chemists. Or a group of students. Or Bill Banker and Fatima Farmer trying to make sense of the world (if they are still talking with each other).
Do both talker and talkee realise whether the subject matter is at the macroscopic, observational level, or at the sub-microscopic, invisible, imagined level? For example, when talker ambiguously asks "What is the shape of water?"
Do both talker and talkee appreciate when the subject matter is "fact" derived from experimental data, and when it is rationalisation of the evidence through modelling? Or that there may be several sensible models to explain the evidence? Is hybridization of orbitals a "fact"? Oh yeah .. have a look at the wording of relevant questions in some textbook exercises and exam papers!
Do both talker and talkee make clear distinction between the reality and the representation? For example, is the talker contemplating what is happening in a reaction mixture, while the talkee is concentrating on the equation for the reaction?
Do both talker and talkee have exactly the same understanding of the meaning of words particular to the field of chemistry - like entropy, electron affinity, ionic bonding, and standard state?
Do both talker and talkee have exactly the same understanding of the meaning of words used in chemistry that are also used in everyday life, sometimes with entirely different meanings - such as dispersion, saturation, weak, equilibrium, resonance, and complex?
Do talker and talkee have similar abilities of visualization of the sub-microscopic world of a reaction mixture?
Do both talker and talkee understand when the focus of modelling is a single molecule (bond angle, dipole, covalent bond), and when modelling necessarily requires visualization of a multi-molecular system (evaporation, hydrogen bonding, the liquid state)?
Do talker and talkee have similar abilities to "see" in three dimensions drawings of the structures of molecules?
What a complex world is chemistry! What challenges for communication ....
In what follows, "talker" and "talkee" may refer to teacher and student(s), but not necessarily. They may be two chemists. Or a group of students. Or Bill Banker and Fatima Farmer trying to make sense of the world (if they are still talking with each other).
Do both talker and talkee realise whether the subject matter is at the macroscopic, observational level, or at the sub-microscopic, invisible, imagined level? For example, when talker ambiguously asks "What is the shape of water?"
Do both talker and talkee appreciate when the subject matter is "fact" derived from experimental data, and when it is rationalisation of the evidence through modelling? Or that there may be several sensible models to explain the evidence? Is hybridization of orbitals a "fact"? Oh yeah .. have a look at the wording of relevant questions in some textbook exercises and exam papers!
Do both talker and talkee make clear distinction between the reality and the representation? For example, is the talker contemplating what is happening in a reaction mixture, while the talkee is concentrating on the equation for the reaction?
Do both talker and talkee have exactly the same understanding of the meaning of words particular to the field of chemistry - like entropy, electron affinity, ionic bonding, and standard state?
Do both talker and talkee have exactly the same understanding of the meaning of words used in chemistry that are also used in everyday life, sometimes with entirely different meanings - such as dispersion, saturation, weak, equilibrium, resonance, and complex?
Do talker and talkee have similar abilities of visualization of the sub-microscopic world of a reaction mixture?
Do both talker and talkee understand when the focus of modelling is a single molecule (bond angle, dipole, covalent bond), and when modelling necessarily requires visualization of a multi-molecular system (evaporation, hydrogen bonding, the liquid state)?
Do talker and talkee have similar abilities to "see" in three dimensions drawings of the structures of molecules?
Chapter 27 modules
Through the modules in this chapter, Prof Bob will try to develop an awareness of possible pitfalls in communicating chemistry - or, to take a more positive outlook, an awareness of issues that can contribute to successful communication in chemistry.
No attempt will be made to be comprehensive, nor to follow a strictly logical sequence. Each module will have a message.
Through the modules in this chapter, Prof Bob will try to develop an awareness of possible pitfalls in communicating chemistry - or, to take a more positive outlook, an awareness of issues that can contribute to successful communication in chemistry.
No attempt will be made to be comprehensive, nor to follow a strictly logical sequence. Each module will have a message.
Module 2701 .... Coming soon
Module 2702 .... Coming soon
Module 2702 .... Coming soon
Science education research supports the experiential perception that many students do not understand the meaning of technical words: they remain just that - words. Chemistry has its own jargon, as well as some that it shares with related subjects such as physics, and some taken from everyday language - but perhaps with a different meaning. In Module 2703: The jargon we use, Prof Bob gives us a taste of what it might be like to be a student in a class thick with a flurry of words that he/she does not know - but which perhaps sound somewhat familiar. This is a message for all of us teachers.
