3.9 Article

Reflections on Physics Education and Communication with Tibetan Monastics

Journal

FRONTIERS IN COMMUNICATION
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fcomm.2021.731074

Keywords

physics education; Tibet; physics demonstration; monastic culture; science education

Categories

Funding

  1. John Templeton Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Physics education research emphasizes the importance of prioritizing conceptual understanding over mathematical representation for successful physics teaching. While conceptual representations are influenced by culture and language, physical laws are universal. Reimagining conceptual physics for Tibetan monastic culture presents challenges, including exploring how translation of key terms impacts connotations of physical laws and assessing the practical strengths and weaknesses of teaching conceptual physics using established methods in the United States.
Physics education research, a field that is now over 100 years old, has made it clear: the key to teaching physics successfully is to prioritize getting the concepts across, and the mathematical representation (laws) can come later. On the other hand, conceptual representations are steeped in culture and language, while the corresponding laws are universal. The ETSI program provided a unique opportunity to re-imagine conceptual physics for Tibetan monastic culture. This perspective describes the major challenges derived from this experience over multiple areas of physics, and addresses two central questions: 1) how does the translation and interpretation of key terms such as energy, motion, charge, and system change the connotations surrounding physical laws? 2) What are the practical strengths and weaknesses of teaching conceptual physics using well-developed methods in the United States, and what can educators learn about the emergence of understanding?

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available