A few time ago, I found an article in which the teaching of heat was done by using a new (invented) word (not using heat) and the learning was similar than when teaching using the word heat. If I am not mistaken, it was used to make a point against the idea that familiarity with words is (always) favorable for learning (in science). I think it was not published in a physics/science teaching journal but in a journal about instruction or learning not specific to science. I'm though not sure of that.
For lower classes we can teach the concept of heat to students as it is usually a very broad concept so to create a linkage of students' knowledge the teacher use the term warmth so that students can relate it with heat
You should check out this kind of research in elementary education: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7017818?casa_token=hpBaw56Z3ZsAAAAA:PyvUj-7FUarvR3VN0BeM74CsabryPfz50a1vAi_W5KxN46QWQqsBNyi-kKDi93m8gxsG5tN5xgzc
Thank you for your answers. My question is meant to be very specific of an approach that taught about heat without using the word "heat". The idea is simple. As the common use of word "heat" is very different from its scientific meaning, using a new word may be a good strategy even if usnig a new word may have negative effect.
Pratima Kumari, in physics, heat is in fact a "very" precise concept, as is usually the case in physics, though, we cannot avoid the warning given by Bertrand Russel in its article "vagueness" where he explain that even in mathematics, vagueness cannot be totally avoided. It is therefore also the case in physics which is tightly linked with mathematics, at least since Galileo.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals