Does it strike anyone else as, well, disturbing that discussion on this
list reveals so many variations on what is meant by 'precision' or
'accuracy'? If we have not all been trained to some consensus on the
meaning of various terms that we teach, perhaps it is not surprising
that researchers are able to easily "show" that our students don't know
physics.
Is it at all possible that much of the vaunted research in physics
education is really about how well individual researchers teach and test
their pet versions of physics? One commentator on this or a similar
list recently noted that reform efforts seem to work in the classrooms
of the creators, and not in another researcher's class. Frankly, I
don't want some know-it-all coming back to me and saying my kids, given
my best efforts to communicate physics, are filled with
'misconceptions.' Yet, it is becoming clear to me that teaching physics
'right' is similar to trying to hit a moving target while aiming into
the wind with a pea shooter.
At any rate, the original post to the thread asked if the concepts of
precision and accuracy were essential to a HS introductory course. The
discussion quickly moved into a debate on what each word meant. I still
want to know, what is gained/lost by inclusion/elimination of the issues
of precision and accuracy in an introductory course?
Ed Eckel
a pretty good physics teacher, until recently anyway
Georgetown Day School