Overcoming English Difficulty to Learn Physics

[Slimy0233]

I am an Indian and even though my English knowledge is somewhat better than that of an average Indian, there isn't a day I try to real highly technical books and fail to understand it at the first glance (or don't understand it at all). I understand why they use language which might seem difficult for a non-native speaker. Some words in some context are more appropriate than other words and some words pack more context and depth than other words I might use. If a man is well-versed in English, he would be able to get the greatest advantage of this as the authors speak more with less words.

Is there a way other than reading more to bridge the gap between non-native speakers who don't read/speak English expect on physics and math textbooks and those who were born in English speaking countries or Europe. (sorry to all Europeans, your exposure to English doesn't compare to people who are from third world countries, but I would like to hear your thoughts as well)

edit(18:13 GMT): I will let you people answer my question before I reply to the threads as it can act as a distraction.

 

[Lnewqban]

This forum is an excellent place to get familiar with specific words.
I have learned many myself.
If you create a post using any less-than-rigorous word, one or more members will soon correct you: that is the quickest way to learn.

 

[gmax137]

Sorry @Slimy0233 I cannot answer your question, but I would point out that physics and math textbooks are not easy to understand even for native speakers! No one can learn physics or math by reading the textbooks, one must instead study the books, and do the problems. Many times I had to read a page several times over, and then go back again the next day, and still it wasn't clear, until I did the problem set.

 

[vela]

I would point out that physics and math textbooks are not easy to understand even for native speakers!

I'll second this. I find many students don't read their textbook because they find it hard to understand. If they read it and find they didn't understand what they just read, they jump to the conclusion "the book sucks!" They don't realize reading and understanding the book requires a bit of work.

One suggestion is to read the book a paragraph at a time and make sure you can paraphrase what you just read before you move onto the next paragraph. The idea is to slow yourself down, recognize any confusion you have right away, and resolve it before you move on. This helps you avoid reading a bunch of text, realizing you don't know what it said, and then going back to reread it again.

 

[Slimy0233]

I'll second this. I find many students don't read their textbook because they find it hard to understand. If they read it and find they didn't understand what they just read, they jump to the conclusion "the book sucks!" They don't realize reading and understanding the book requires a bit of work.

Does it get any better tho? I imagine if you have enough math knowledge, you would be able to read a textbook, like you read a children's story. Are these unrealistic expectations?

I am sure as I keep on reading the literature it will get easier, but I don't know by how much.

 

[vela]

Does it get any better tho? I imagine if you have enough math knowledge, you would be able to read a textbook, like you read a children's story. Are these unrealistic expectations?

It can get easier for a variety of reasons. Some of it, for example, is simply learning how physicists think and express themselves. Also, as you learn more, you recognize similar lines of reasoning, and so on. Part of it is you become a better learner simply through practice.

Whether reading a text becomes akin to reading a children's story, that depends, I'd say, mostly on the level of the text. For example, I sometimes teach intro astronomy, and when I read the book, it makes sense to me because it's largely stuff I already know but just in a new context. For my students, though, it's a completely different experience. They don't know what the author is getting at nor which details are important to understand, etc.

 

[CrysPhys]

I'll second this. I find many students don't read their textbook because they find it hard to understand. If they read it and find they didn't understand what they just read, they jump to the conclusion "the book sucks!" They don't realize reading and understanding the book requires a bit of work.

One suggestion is to read the book a paragraph at a time and make sure you can paraphrase what you just read before you move onto the next paragraph. The idea is to slow yourself down, recognize any confusion you have right away, and resolve it before you move on. This helps you avoid reading a bunch of text, realizing you don't know what it said, and then going back to reread it again.

I'll agree in part. But some textbooks are indeed horribly written and do truly suck. Also, the linear approach (understand a paragraph thoroughly before moving on to the next) isn't always the best. Many textbooks I've come across often aren't well organized. Often introductory paragraphs toss out a lot of terms and concepts undefined. These are then defined and clarified further on. So an iterative approach is often better: read through several pages (or an entire chapter, if it is short) to get an initial survey of the landscape; then, re-read from the start more deliberately.

 

[CrysPhys]

Does it get any better tho? I imagine if you have enough math knowledge, you would be able to read a textbook, like you read a children's story. Are these unrealistic expectations?

I am sure as I keep on reading the literature it will get easier, but I don't know by how much.

Textbooks aren't structured like children's stories (or even adult stories). You go over a portion of the textbook to achieve one level of understanding. Work out some problems to determine what level of understanding you have actually achieved. Then review that portion of the textbook again to achieve a second level of understanding ("Ah! That's what he was talking about!"). Repeat if needed.

 

[CrysPhys]

I am an Indian and even though my English knowledge is somewhat better than that of an average Indian, there isn't a day I try to real highly technical books and fail to understand it at the first glance (or don't understand it at all). I understand why they use language which might seem difficult for a non-native speaker. Some words in some context are more appropriate than other words and some words pack more context and depth than other words I might use. If a man is well-versed in English, he would be able to get the greatest advantage of this as the authors speak more with less words.

But if you read advanced technical books in your native language, do you understand the material thoroughly after a single reading?

 

[symbolipoint]

Does it get any better tho? I imagine if you have enough math knowledge, you would be able to read a textbook, like you read a children's story. Are these unrealistic expectations?

Unreasonable! Ability to handle the written language MAY improve but "easier", not usually. Mathematics and Physics textbooks are not children's stories. (Children's stories are still good for (1) language exercise, and (2) in some cases , cultural and counsel help).

 

[Slimy0233]

But if you read advanced technical books in your native language, do you understand the material thoroughly after a single reading?

I am sorry, there are not many books in my native language. My whole life, I have learnt Maths and Physics through English, but that English was more "simpler" than the one I am exposed to now.

 

[gmax137]

@Slimy0233 maybe you can show us several examples of text? That could help us understand the issue.

 

[Slimy0233]

@Slimy0233 maybe you can show us several examples of text? That could help us understand the issue.

I shall do that. But it might take time. In 2 days I am pretty sure I would have many examples. Thank you for your willingness to help!

 

[vela]

So an iterative approach is often better: read through several pages (or an entire chapter, if it is short) to get an initial survey of the landscape; then, re-read from the start more deliberately.

I should have clarified that the paragraph-at-a-time approach is for when the student is doing a deep reading of the text. This reading would be after the initial passes to get and idea of what's being covered, identifying questions, and perhaps having heard a lecture on the material.

And as with any study technique, you shouldn't stick with it rigidly for its own sake, but adapt it to find what works for you.

 

[Slimy0233]

I should have clarified that the paragraph-at-a-time approach is for when the student is doing a deep reading of the text. This reading would be after the initial passes to get and idea of what's being covered, identifying questions, and perhaps having heard a lecture on the material.

And as with any study technique, you shouldn't stick with it rigidly for its own sake, but adapt it to find what works for you.

thank you!

 

[Slimy0233]

I don't know what the hell "will be bounded in the interval" means in this context.

I am just trying to create a compilation of examples of things I don't understand, so people can help in a better way.

 

[gmax137]

I don't know what the hell "will be bounded in the interval" means in this context.

It is asking you, will y(x) not diverge (go to plus or minus infinity) for which of these intervals:
a) all x > 1
b) all x < 1
c) x = 1
d) all x > 0

Maybe one of our more mathematically minded members (eg, @fresh_42 ) can express this more rigorously?

 

[fresh_42]

It is asking you, will y(x) not diverge (go to plus or minus infinity) for which of these intervals:
a) all x > 1
b) all x < 1
c) x = 1
d) all x > 0

Maybe one of our more mathematically minded members (eg, @fresh_42 ) can express this more rigorously?

The solution to $y'=y^2$ is $y(x)=\dfrac{1}{c-x}.$ This is a bunch of solutions, for every real value of $c$ one solution. The initial value $y(0)=1$ determines $c$ and makes the solution unique, namely $y(x)=\dfrac{1}{1-x}$. It has a pole at $x=1$ and is therefore unbounded an every interval that contains $1$ or is bounded by $1.$ It is unbounded on $(1,\infty )\, , \,(-\infty ,1)\, , \,(0,\infty )$ and undefined on $[1,1].$ None of the choices is true.

 

[Slimy0233]

Thank you both of you @fresh_42 @gmax137

And thank you for the answer @fresh_42

I actually was trying to compile a list, but maybe I will make another list and repost this thread someday.

 

[StatGuy2000]

@Slimy0233 , if you don't mind my asking, what is your native language?

You did state that you are from India, but given that the Indian constitution recognizes 22 official languages, and that there are ~1600 languages spoken (give or take, depending on what is defined as a "language" versus "dialect"), that does not really narrow down what is your language.

 

[Slimy0233]

@Slimy0233 , if you don't mind my asking, what is your native language?

I am sorry, but I won't wanna reveal that.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I am sorry, but I won't wanna reveal that.

If you don't mind, feel free to PM me.