Some alternative views of energy

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
It is important to recognise that the frameworks here are not meant to categorise youngsters in the way they think. They are a useful means of analysing and describing the complex responses they provide as they discuss the concept of energy. Viennot's (1979) work has shown that formal teaching is not always successful at changing students' ideas. In her study, Engel (1982) found a confusing picture of conceptual change in fourth-and fifth-year pupils - certainly no clear-cut pattern of acceptance of (or growth towards) scientific ideas because of classroom teaching. The debate about the teaching of energy is not a new one, as the letters columns of the long established journals testify. Certainly if youngsters are to be encouraged to undergo conceptual change towards the scientific view, then both the content and practice of science education must change. Conceptual change, one might say, is two way. Pupils' ideas must be valued and built on. Interesting examples are Solomon's (1982) development of `useless' energy, Schmid's (1982) `energy carriers' and Härtel's (1982) circuitry. The frameworks described here are not the full range of possible ones. Rather than simply speculate at quite what students understand by it all, we have to begin to find out. Then both student and teacher can come to know both their own - and each other's - meanings for energy.

This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit: