Ed Eckel asks some important questions about how well we agree upon
things, whether we sometimes teach things incorrectly, what things are
important at what grade level, etc.
The way our system works, we do not have a rigid set of what has to be
taught when. I know that some states and some schools impose a fairly
tight curriculum at some grade levels, but teachers usually have some
leeway, and often have considerable leeway. I see nothing wrong with
that. The alternative seems pretty frightening to me.
Also, the way our system works, no one demands that we take an exam
over all the things we have to teach, and pass it with 100%. Yes, many
states require public school teachers to pass some sort of content area
exam, but you do not have to pass at 100%. So there are bound to be
all kinds of things you don't know. Usually, professors don't have to
pass any exams at all, other than the qualifying exams and preliminary
exams when they were in grad school. And those exams don't have to be
passed at the 100% level either.
I make a lot fewer mistakes now than I did in 1978 when I began
teaching. The only reason is because (1) I was receptive to learning
and then changing when I discovered I had something wrong, (2) I wasn't
fired for making a few mistakes.
With respect to precision and accuracy, I think there is widespread
agreement on this. You don't have to look at very many textbooks and
you'll see a very consistent picture. It doesn't bother me there might
have been less agreement here on this list. I presume the people
discussing here are not doing so because they're experts, but because
they find it interesting, they are curious, or perhaps they find
themselves needing to teach it and they realize they don't yet know
very much about it. Especially in the latter case, that's one of the
beautiful things about this type of list-server.
By asking around here (at Bluffton), in addition to what I read here
(on phys-l), I think there was somewhat less agreement on what
resolution means and how it relates to precision. But I think the
majority of scientists have a general consensus on what it means, and I
think some of us realize that better now than we did.
The question of whether any of this needs to be taught at the high
school level is more difficult to answer. The best thing I can say is
that you can be pretty sure students will be subjected to it in
freshman and sophomore college classes in chemistry, physics, and
engineering. When I teach it in my sophomore calculus-based physics
class I assume some have seen it and remember it, some have seen it but
forgot it, and some have never seen it before. Of course those who
have seen it before will have quicker success in my course than those
who have not, but that doesn't necessarily mean the high school
teachers have to teach it. It's the perennial struggle, if you take
time to include it, what's the other thing you have to cut out? In the
end, you just have to use your best judgement, do the best job you can,
and only worry just enough that you'll wake up and smell the coffee if
you need to. But chances are, if you're reasonably conscientious, you
won't need to wake up and smell the coffee very often. And if you
should find it's necessary to change what you're teaching, it's very
unlikely you ruined the lives of any of your previous students. If
that were not true, then I couldn't possibly be a teacher, because I
couldn't bear the thought of how many lives I might have ruined over
the past 21 years.
Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D. Phone/voice-mail: 419-358-3270
Professor of Chemistry & Physics FAX: 419-358-3323
Chairman, Science Department E-Mail edmiston@bluffton.edu
Bluffton College
280 West College Avenue
Bluffton, OH 45817