Metaimagining and Embodied Conceptions of Spacetime

Abstract

Though we live in a four-dimensional universe, our minds and bodies are not particularly good at perceiving and depicting four dimensions. This study contributes to our understanding of collaboration with abstract concepts by examining particular activities where bodily and experiential understandings may conflict with the conceptual domain. Specifically, upper secondary physics classrooms studying Einstein's general theory of relativity are taken as a setting to identify the representational practices and conceptual challenges that arise when learners attempt to make meaning with, and express conflicting notions of, space and time. To unpack these challenges, we draw on the concept of imagination and on theoretical perspectives that treat imagining as a social activity. We also present the concept of metaimagining to characterize layered processes in which learners attend to and manage shifts between their own imaginative activities. This concept is illustrated through a detailed analysis of an extended conversation between two upper secondary physics students working with general relativity and spacetime. The students perform a diverse set of imaginative activities that are strongly tied to communicative, cognitive, and bodily action. We also show how the unique domain of general relativity presents particular challenges to student meaning making of abstract concepts which in turn prompt metaimagining. Based on our analysis, we offer recommendations to improve instructional practices in general relativity and argue for the consideration of imagining as a transdisciplinary competency in math and science education.

The culture of disciplines: Reconceptualising multi‐subject curricula

“…Teacher data shows that their attempts at more motivating STEAM lessons reflect this belief that there is a better way (Trowsdale, 2020), but that they are without the conceptual apparatus to implement it effectively. Steier and Kersting (2019) have reviewed an analogous situation in A-level physics teaching and identified approaches which also address our issue. Their article focused on the ways in which two students are trying to understand the relativistic conception of gravity.…”

Embodied interactions in a science museum

“…Embodied cognition constructs cognitive processes as deeply rooted in the body's interaction with the world (Amin et al, 2015). Of the few educational studies that explore embodied cognition, most focus on math classes (Hall & Nemirovsky, 2012;Lakoff & Núñez, 2000;Stevens, 2012), some on science classes (Alibali & Nathan, 2012;Becvar et al, 2005;Euler et al, 2019;Steier & Kersting, 2019), and a very few on informal science learning environments. Georgen (2019), for example, explores embodied cognition in an out-of-school activity in a performing arts center, incorporating the concept of state of matter with dance.…”

Exploring participant engagement during an astrophysics virtual reality experience at a science festival

“…We have no direct experience of astronomical phenomena such as gravitational waves. Therefore, these phenomena often present learners with imaginative challenges (Steier & Kersting, 2019). Moreover, the nature of many astronomical phenomena seems to be counterintuitive or even contradictory to our previous knowledge of the world (Kersting et al, 2018).…”

“…Since science often deals with the unobservable, visualisations available through VR are particularly valuable in scientific domains where concepts are difficult or impossible to perceive directly (Bakas & Mikropoulos, 2003;Brinson, 2015;Kersting, 2020;López & Pintó, 2017;Smetana & Bell, 2012). Scientific entities are sometimes too small, such as atoms and DNA molecules; or too big, such as stars and galaxies; they unfold over timescales that are hard to grasp, such as chemical reactions or evolutionary processes; or they are not directly observable in the physical environment, such as the Earth's axis and orbit around the Sun or gravity as the curvature of spacetime (López & Pintó, 2017;Pande & Chandrasekharan, 2017;Steier & Kersting, 2019;Sullivan et al, 2017).…”