Information sources and physics teaching

[PeterDonis]

You should do this before making a claim, not after. Part of science is supposed to be that you don't make claims that you can't back up. If you can't remember a source for the claim, you can't back it up.

Btw, if you, @syfry, were to ask why this is relevant to the thread, it's because someone who wants to revolutionize how science is taught should at least be able to justify a scientific claim they make, or have the self-control to not make the claim if they can't justify it.

 

[syfry]

UX engineer? Now you are doing what you are ranting about, undefined jargon.

You're right, and shouldn't be surprised. It's hard work to communicate how I'm proposing and the time I can dedicate to replying in an internet forum isn't nearly enough.

Rest assured the actual effort will receive the amount of time it should.

These words are not arbitrary, They have a common characteristic right angle but apply to different contexts. Perpendicular: meeting at a right angle, Orthogonal crossing at a right angle, normal meeting a tangent line (or tangent plane) at a right angle. Upon meeting these words for the first time they are either defined by the instructor or if knowledge is assumed you look it up in a dictionary in the corrected context which is assumed to be known.

They appear arbitrarily phrased for a goal of people understanding what they learn. Did the people who decided base their decisions on a number of peer reviewed studies of how learnable their choice of wording is?

On the spur of the moment trying to choose the phrasing (to later scientifically test for how learnable it is), I might instead say as temporary placeholders until confirmed as accurate: crosswise meeting, crosswise intersecting, and crosswise whatever a tangent means. (did a search and failed to decipher its meaning, looks like a straight line is rested on a curve, and perhaps you zoom in until the curve appears parallel to the straight line for whatever reason)

However, merely choosing words isn't enough, even if carefully over a longer time.

You must collaborative with an expert to confirm that the meanings of simpler wordings will still accurately match the meanings of difficult jargon, you must test with real people to find confusions then rephrase any problem wordings until they're faster to learn, you must rethink the number of categories by asking if a single category with obvious variations can do what the 3 current categories are doing or if that many variations are absolutely necessary, you must ensure their purpose is quickly apparent to learners, you must be temporarily anonymous when doing any of this to avoid problems of ego, etc.

Without the people such as physicists and effective teachers, plus real scientific testing, I can supply only flawed examples.

Finally, to be crystal clear, even with all of that it isn't guaranteed to be effective. Isn't that why we scientifically test things, for the results to confirm or dispute what we're hypothesizing? And even then, they'd have to be continually and independently replicated.

 

[syfry]

That appears to be the crux of the matter at hand.

Learning/understanding is part individual capability (nature) and part education (nurture), and each person represents a unique combination. For whatever reason, some folks will absorb information readily and others will struggle. Some will obtain advanced degrees, while many others may not even complete a primary education, and there is everyone in between.

Yes the material is difficult to me, but my main motivation was from having taught people who struggle to learn the material a lot faster than I did.

Since that's from my own experiences then we'll wait and see what scientific testing of the method will result in. Instead of merely relying on my own personal accounts of such experiences.

Thanks for your detailed reply, I did read all of it and you make some good points. I don't have time to reply to the rest.

 

[syfry]

No process is 100% perfect, so the "iron catastrophe" referred to in that previous thread, while it explains why the Earth's core is made of iron, in no way required that every single iron atom went to the core. Even a tiny residue remaining in the crust would be a lot in terms of the Earth's biosphere.

Of course we also know that meteorites that hit the Earth often contain iron, so some of the iron in the crust is from that source; but that's very, very different from claiming that all of the iron in the crust is from meteorites.

That's good. I can rephrase. You already should be aware that I'm well aware that you know the things in physics that I don't. If I'm providing a quick hypothetical sample for only the purpose of showing a method, that's all it is.

The actual process would involve physics people. They aren't here yet. But you can volunteer if you want!

You should do this before making a claim, not after. Part of science is supposed to be that you don't make claims that you can't back up. If you can't remember a source for the claim, you can't back it up.

Which is why I add that my understanding is likely needing accuracy. I chose to communicate with you as best as able, The other option would be to ignore your comment, if qualifying my words as likely inaccurate isn't enough. I prefer to reply.

And I do have a life outside of here, busy at work, so often write fast, making errors if that's understandable. In this case I did multiple times say that my quickly written attempts likely have inaccuracy because of my lack in knowledge.

Cool?

 

[syfry]

"Jargon" seems to be one of your favorite words, seemingly used to subtly denigrate the terminology used in subjects that you either don't understand or have great difficulty in understanding.

The word jargon is so we're on the same page. I try to remember to say 'difficult jargon'. Please don't take critique of the wording as some kind of attack. Instead it's a statement from my own stance that science belongs in everyone's hands.

Every field of study, and not just in the sciences and mathematics, has its own set of terminology and symbolism. These all stem from some individual or group of individuals, working independently, who first started thinking about and recording their thoughts about that field. Given that multiple people wrote about these fields, it's natural that they came up with different terminology.

Makes sense. But they aren't teachers and what's needed if we want more people to learn, is to ensure the wording we teach is a proper fit for the best learning.

 

[syfry]

...it's because someone who wants to revolutionize how science is taught

Merely want to better how science is taught, and it'll be a lot more people than me and with a lot more knowledge who'll be doing so.

My purpose in elaborating throughout the 3 pages was to reply to people's questions they probably asked in good faith. Also replied to hopefully gain some insight from people here, which I did. There isn't anything I could prove or showcase about methods and whatever potential effectiveness because 1), it's only myself at the moment without the more knowledgeable people including teachers and physicists, and 2), the methods need to be fully developed and tested. (preferably in a double blind manner if possible)

We're at the early steps. I cannot display any unforseen future steps at the moment. So unless you want any further elaborating, we can finish the thread. If so, thanks for participating.

 

[berkeman]

So unless you want any further elaborating, we can finish the thread. If so, thanks for participating.

Thread is closed now.