I found several quotes regarding student misconceptions and the
definitions we give to physics terminology. Weeks ago I recall someong
here bringing up the issue that definitions aren't so important because
students will understand odd usage of science terminology from the
context. In other words, don't nitpick the definitions.
I received similar mail from readers of my Miscon site. I came up with a
response. Here it is below (after the quotes.)
"Lest you think that I am quibbling over minor points of language, I
note that in my experience many of the misconceptions people harbor have
their origins in imprecise language... Precise language is needed in
science, not to please pedants but to avoid absorbing nonsense that
will take years, if ever, to purge from our minds."
- Dr. Craig F. Bohren, from his "Clouds in a Glass of Beer: simple
experiments in atmospheric physics"
"(language) becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are
foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to
have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell
"The search for the MOT JUSTE is not a pedantic fad but a vital
necessity. Words are our precision tools. Imprecision engenders
ambiguity and hours are wasted in removing verbal misunderstandings
before the argument of substance can begin." - ANONYMOUS CIVIL SERVANT
(from Roget's Thesaurus Webpage)
"Many errors, of a truth, consist merely in the application of the
wrong names of things." -Spinoza
AM I JUST A PEDANTIC SCIENCE-NITPICKER? W. Beaty 1998
Let me first tell a little about myself. I'm not a teacher. I have a great
respect for the teaching profession, and I don't know if I would be a good
fulltime teacher if I tried it myself. Also, I'm not a professional
author, and I'm aware of the huge amount of skilled work needed to produce
a good book (as opposed to throwing together a website like I've done.)
What I am is a professional electronics designer. I'm also still a science
student, and hope to be one always.
Where did my Textbook Misconceptions List come from? No, I'm not just a
professional nitpicker who can't stand tiny flaws. I was one of those
students who developed a deep love of physical science. Over the years I
slowly learned to "dance" with the subject, to find massive intercon-
nections between separate parts, until physics eventually became for me
like a vast ballet, or like a gigantic puzzle where most pieces connect
together in a deeply satisfying way. It all made SENSE, and had the depths
of esthetics like good food or great art.
As part of my science museum exhibit designs in 1988, I acquired a stack
of elementary school textbooks. I wanted to see how to explain electricity
to 6th-graders. In reading the books I was totally stunned. The
electricity chapters were wrong. Terribly terribly wrong. It wasn't just
simple factual errors, and they weren't wrong in the way that a physicist
might regard "electrons orbiting atoms" as being wrong. This was
different. The books' electricity chapters were teaching bizarre things.
If "electricity" is like a gas, then the books were doing the equivalent
of teaching that wind moves at the speed of light, that sound and air are
the same thing, and that nitrogen is a form of energy. The authors of
those books clearly had many typical student misconceptions regarding
electricity. Unfortunately, the authors were not students anymore, they
were science experts, and they were teaching their misconceptions as
facts. What K-6 student could avoid acquiring a misconception, if that
misconception has the stamp of approval of the ultimate authority: their
science textbook?
After my encounter with those books, I slowly realized that my own
understanding of electricity was flawed and incomplete. I sat down and
started re-teaching myself the subject. I became aware of the source of my
problem: I myself had learned a bunch of electricity misconceptions as a
child. Those misconceptions had given me a faulty foundation on which to
build further knowledge. As a result, later correct information became
distorted in my mind even as I learned it. It was like trying to build a
brick wall on top of a garbage pile: the incoming bricks are perfectly
good, but they simply do not fit, and any structures that I managed to
build kept collapsing. My solution was typical: dive into mathematics,
understand electricity in the form of interconnected equations, but
without having any real visual, gut-level "feel" for the concepts.
As an experienced adult who was re-examining his childhood misconceptions,
I found it fairly easy to root out the bad stuff and to construct a
sensible view of the world of "electricity." I came to view electrical
physics and circuitry not as abstractions and math, but to understand it
in a visual, gut-level way which I never could before.
All of this made me realize that most people are in the same situation I
had been in, but without having the benefit of a physics education to
teach them the math. Why couldn't I understand electricity? Because I
had misconceptions about it. Why was this? In part because of the
normal, expected misconceptions that most students pick up. But the
majority of my misconceptions had been specifically taught to me. The
misconceptions had been in my science textbooks long ago, and they were
still in most modern textbooks. My books had given me a set of serious,
nearly undefeatable learning barriers. Similar books were still out there
at present, giving everyone else the same barriers. Clearly Something
Must Be Done! :)
At first I tried writing letters to textbook and encyclopedia publishers,
but that was an uphill battle. Who was I, that I could tell them that
their books were wrong, especially when ALL OTHER BOOKS also say the same
thing as theirs? I did some consulting work for a more tolerant
publisher, but the company moved to Texas and the whole project was
suddenly cancelled after much unpaid work. I gave up in frustration.
Along comes internet. FINALLY! A way to get this information out into
the world! I wrote up my "misconceptions" page and I've been adding to it
ever since. Then A. B. Frazer linked my page to "BAD SCIENCE" and the
hitcount really soared.
Am I just a pedantic science-nitpicker? No. I'm a student who has
discovered great personal flaws, who has gone through a recent traumatic
learning experience, stumbled on some important keys to understanding, and
who now wants to benefit the other students by telling everyone what I
learned. My experience occurred after I had become an adult, so it is
still fresh in my mind. I originally didn't understand electricity at all
(this after getting a BS in Electrical Engineering!) Later I finally
figured out what was wrong, fixed my problems, and now I understand it
pretty well. Then I put my learning barriers in a list so that others can
eliminate theirs as well.
Of course my list isn't 100% perfect, so I hope that it will form a basis
for improvement and conceptual change rather than becoming another source
of 'Ultimate Truth.' I certainly don't want to set myself up as another
ultimate content expert! After all, that's one reason the misconceptions
got into textbooks in the first place: too little critical thought given
to presumably-authoritative published words. "Whoever undertakes to set
himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the
laughter of the gods." -Einstein
Back to the purpose of this message. I receive two main classes of
response about my miscon page. One group says "These aren't really
errors, what's the big deal?!" The other group says "After thirty years
of being confused about this stuff, I FINALLY understand it! Thank you!"
The second type of response gives me grave doubts about accepting the
first. So, be warned. If someone reads my lists and thinks "THESE AREN'T
ERRORS, THEY'RE JUST TRIVIAL NITPICKING", that person might have reasons
to be threatened by this information, or at the very least they are
belittling something that they don't understand. Nitpicking of science
trivia certainly doesn't attract numerous emotional "thank you" letters!
Obviously the misconceptions I recorded in my lists don't give serious
learning barriers to everyone, but they surely did to me. From
receiving mail and from talking to fellow engineers and electronics techs,
I find that they give learning barriers to a majority of technical people.
Yes, my lists are criticism, constructive criticism I hope. As with all
criticism, there is a danger that authors and educators will ignore it
because it seems to be a sort of namecalling, possibly motivated by anger.
I admit there is a bit of this aspect to my writing, but just a bit. I
feel ripped off by my K-12 classes, and I see the same thing happening to
students even now. But I don't blame the teachers for this, any more than
I blame myself for becomi'ng infected' by the same misconceptions. Don't
think in terms of blame. Think in terms of ridding yourself of flawed
knowledge, and so becoming a better teacher (or better electronics
designer!) Please don't get turned off by the things my lists imply! If
you would, see them as constructive criticism, as suggestions for change,
not as a hostile attack.