Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: vector notation



I appreciated the post by Frysinger about working on standards. I
mostly agree, but I have a question about the group of people who reach
"consensus" on the standards. It would seem to me the people working on
standards are already "experienced people" and not students. I think
the group does not represent students and probably not too many math or
science educators.

The consensus in this thread (although a very small group) is that
students need the arrow notation. That certainly is my experience. In
addition to the fact that students can't write bold, if I use bold
and/or italics on handouts and exams, then print it on a typical ink-jet
or laser printer, then duplicate it, students have a hard time noticing
whether something is bold or not. When I use an LCD projector in class,
and the room is not totally dark, there is difficulty telling what is
bold or not. I generally avoid bold and italics for most things because
of this. Underline or other separate markings are stronger. In my
printed and projected work using vectors, I use MathType to put the
arrow on the top. It is very clear, and nearly impossible to miss.

But my main point is not so much that I prefer arrows, but rather that
the people who come to consensus on standards are not usually the same
people who teach the standards. Therefore, the standards sometimes end
up being something difficult to deal with in the educational process.
Additionally, the standards folks should consider how much group
information is communicated by projected images using LCD projectors,
and whether bold print is really visible to the general audience.


Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
Professor of Physics and Chemistry
Bluffton College
Bluffton, OH 45817
(419)-358-3270
edmiston@bluffton.edu