I feel like visuals, movement, creation, and manipulable objects really help with learning complicated concepts, though, not being a math major, I still had a difficult time understanding a lot of what was described in the Henderson and Taimina paper. I imagine it would have been easier if I had the objects in front of me, rather than just pictures and descriptions. Things need to be seen in motion to get the full effect. But what actually does embodied learning mean? Is it any physical manipulation of objects in order to learn? If that is the case, geology lends itself to simple activities like scratching minerals and playing with magnets to see what happens. A teacher the other day moved desks around in the classroom to simulate the motion of tectonic plates. Is that embodied learning?
If we want to get into complicated concepts like those in the paper, there must be simpler ways to describe crystal geometry and melting points between solid solutions than what is traditionally done. The mathematical equations, notations, and projections onto a two-dimensional plane are difficult to understand. Can we give students manipulable models to help them understand the concepts? Or, better yet, guide them through building the models themselves?
If we want to get into complicated concepts like those in the paper, there must be simpler ways to describe crystal geometry and melting points between solid solutions than what is traditionally done. The mathematical equations, notations, and projections onto a two-dimensional plane are difficult to understand. Can we give students manipulable models to help them understand the concepts? Or, better yet, guide them through building the models themselves?
No comments:
Post a Comment