Re: [Phys-l] "Unlearning"

[Philip Keller <PKeller@holmdelschools.org>]

But if my physics or chem class is the last one that a student will ever take, I don't think I want to spend any of that time on the topic of significant figures at all.  It takes at least 2 or 3 days to "teach" the standard text-book version of that topic.  Kids HATE it and find it to be a painfully boring introduction to the subject at hand.  I'd rather just skip it, move on to content and tell them "give me three decimals in labwork and we'll worry about it later (or never)".  Those 3 days could be spent better (and would be hard to spend worse).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
> bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Meyer
> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 11:30 AM
> To: Forum for Physics Educators
> Subject: Re: [Phys-l] "Unlearning"
>
> "My examples about atoms filling their shells ,and
> I think (and I'm interested to know if anyone
> thinks I am wrong on this one), that refraction
> is like a marching bandŠ are rather different ,
> as they are 'models' that are not useful
> approximations but conceptually quite unlike the
> target scientific thinking.   - Keith"
>
> The bigger question I don't think this discussion has addressed is that most
> secondary physics students won't major in physics. (Or better still, most
> secondary students won't ever take another course in physics!)  I agree
> completely that we need to put greater emphasis on the fact that we ARE
> teaching imperfect models and analogies.  BUT, I would say that many of these
> things are taught as they are because a majority of students will never have
> to "unlearn" the models taught in high school or even many introductory
> college physics classes.
>
> I'm not sure it's reasonable to adopt/require more complex models/analogies
> when a majority of students will not have to "unlearn" simpler ones. I would
> consider Keith's "marching band" and "filled shell" examples sufficient and
> graspable as an explanation of refraction and simple chemistry for a vast
> majority of the population.  I won't defend significant figures, but will say
> that for math-challenged students, "real" error analysis dramatically
> compounds the mathematical difficulties (and fear!) students already have with
> physics and physical science. For many students at the secondary level, a
> simple conceptual understanding IS the "target scientific thinking."
>
> To me, there is a vast difference between building a foundation for a future
> physicist and introducing the broader population to the ideas of physics, and
> most secondary schools necessarily focus on the broader population.   That's
> why physics majors have to "unlearn."
>
> Mike Meyer
> Senior Lecturer
> Michigan Technlogical University
> mrmeyer@mtu.edu
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l