Re: [Phys-l] Learning barriers: was Physics first

[Ludwik Kowalski <kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu>]

On Nov 16, 2006, at 1:24 PM, Rick Tarara wrote:

> Consider that there are three generations of scientists out there 
> using the
> terms oxidation and reduction.  You, of course, could teach your 
> students
> using 'loss of electrons' or 'gain in electrons' and then your students
> wouldn't be confused UNTIL they hit the outside world and heard people
> saying oxidation and reduction.  They would be confused for a while, 
> then
> they would realize these are just different terms for what old LK 
> called
> 'loss/gain of electrons".  They might curse you under their breadth for
> leaving them ignorant of this common nomenclature and, if they then go 
> off
> to teach, will almost certainly return to these old words.
>
> It would be wonderful if we really had a clean slate and could rework 
> all
> the pedagogy without regard to common practices, common nomenclature,
> historical documents and developments.  I'm sure Jim Green would love 
> to
> rewrite all the intro text book thermo sections.    ;-)
>
> You could maybe start a movement towards more descriptive nomenclature 
> by
> teaching 'loss/gain of electrons" but also clearly identifying that 
> others
> call this oxidation and reduction, but that you hold such words confuse
> rather than clarify the physics/chemistry.  Maybe your students then 
> will
> spread your teachings.

In this case I am not a teacher, I am a frustrated student, trying to 
learn electrochemistry. I agree that individual teachers must not 
deviate too much from the vocabulary used in textbooks. But 
professional organizations, should occasionally step-in and propose 
better approaches, for example once every ten or twenty years, when 
inconveniences become obvious. The best an individual teacher can do, 
as suggested by Bernard, is to trace the history of confusing terms.

Ludwik Kowalski
Let the perfect not be the enemy of the good.