Re: precision?

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@SFU.CA>]

> 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.

It doesn't disturb me. I was under a misimpression about the *precise*
meaning of "precision" in a scientific context. Thanks to this discussion
(and our colleagues here) I have corrected that defect, reducing by .001%
the store of information I know which ain't so.

That's far from disturbing; it means I'm not wasting my time here.

> 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.

If correct physics is a moving target (it is) it surely moves
slowly enough that no misconceptions should arise at the high school
level in a very long time, characteristically less often than once
in a teacher's career. Still there are many things taught in some of
the high schools out there that are wrong or dangerously misleading.
I think that this group can be of tremendous value to those who will
read and think. We physicists are quite used to making statements
which are then demolished by our peers; we learn by defending them
until the controversy is resolved. No one gets hurt physically; no
one should *feel* hurt, either.

This method, collegial discussion, is old in science. It has been
very successful. I wouldn't see it change for anything.

> 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?

I'm now convinced that it would be of value to include discussion of
these topics at the high school level.

Leigh