The Narrative of Matan Torah

1. The Narrative of Matan Torah Lauren Kirschenbaum, MenachemMenchel, Hartley Perlmutter and Allison Rubin

2. Introduction The nature of Jewish education • Children grow up learning the stories of the Bible before reading them inside, and therefore they often approach the text with preconceived notions. Our Interest: • To see how people assimilate the text of Matan Torah with their preconceived notions of the story and other foreknowledge.   • To see how different people understand ambiguities within the text and contradictions between what they have learned in the past and what is written in the text.

3. Procedure • 2 Novices (3rd and 4th grade boys) • 2 Experts (teenage boys in high school) • Protocol: Asked interviewee to: • Summarize Matan Torah based on general knowledge • Draw a picture of Matan Torah • Read verses about Matan Torah (from Sefer Shmot) and explain the ambiguities and offer resolution to discrepancies between their summaries and the pesukim

4. Observations • Teenagers are less talkative and need trigger questions • Remember the more dramatic aspects of Matan Torah (EgelHazahav, breaking the Luchot) • The experts were aware of the abstract aspects depicted in the pesukim (KanfeiNesharim), while the novices focused on the concrete happenings

5. Analysis- Abstract vs. Concrete Some of the key distinctions between our novices and expert interviewees manifest with regard to abstract reasoning versus concrete reasoning EXAMPLES: 1. Shofar 2. “Eagles Wings” 3. “Kedusha”

6. Analysis- Abstract vs. Concrete There were exceptions to this distinction and we could not find consistency between both novices in each example.

7. Drawings – Novice 1

8. Drawings – Novice 2

9. Drawings – Expert 1

10. Drawings – Expert 2

11. Analysis- Drawings Our analysis of the drawings led us to several interesting observations: • When drawing the ‘scene’ of Matan Torah, people are more likely to recall and to portray the components of the story that are most dramatic • e.g. -- breaking the luchot, despite it not being in the text • A potential theory for this behavior is that it is most memorable

12. Analysis- Drawings Our analysis of the drawings led us to several interesting observations: • ‘Depicting’ God: • Both novices and Expert 2, seemed to want to portray God in a physical way, within the picture. • Novice 1 -- wrote the letter “hei” in a cloud • Novice 2 -- ? • Expert 2 – A cloud covering the whole sky

13. Processes Our interviewees demonstrated numerous schemas, as well as a few mental models. Schemas: • Both novices and Expert 2 incorporated a schema of rounded luchot included a picture of rounded luchot in their drawings • Novice 1 incorporated a schema associating fire with wood and thus, in depicting fire, he drew a charred branch -- this seemed to be a manifestation of his need for concrete reasoning because from his perspective, fire needs to burn something.

14. Processes (continued) • Novice 1 demonstrated a schema that mountains have snow at their tops • Novice 2 incorporated a schema of language and prefixes which manifest in his understanding of the word “encamped” • Expert 1 exhibited a story script associating greatness with the drum roll effect. He described thunder and lightning as the drum roll of God

15. Processes (continued) • Expert 2 described Matan Torah within its own schema

16. Processes Mental Models • Utilizing a drawing to depict a story is a mental model that was employed by all interviewees (and prompted by interviewers) • Novice 2 attempted to construct a mental model when discussing where Hashem/God was

17. Conclusion(s) • Experts remembered Matan Torah according to the stories they are taught in elementary school, even if they learned Shmot again in High School • This might teach us to re-evaluate how we teach Jewish Studies. Vivid stories seem to be more effective then learning from the pasuk.