B Information sources and physics teaching

[gleem]

teaching is a very immature science, simply because it's a relatively new field,

Learning/teaching/education research is not that new well over a hundred years old. Physics teaching research began in the late 1950's. It is a branch of psychology with a little neurobiology thrown it. Since it is behavioral as @vanhess71 noted it is an individual thing. Unlike physical differences, which we can easily see that one size does not fit all we have not learned to tailor education very well to the individual characteristics of the students.

Perhaps someday we may develop a method of evaluating these characteristics along with teaching techniques that fit them. Maybe the techniques will not be a perfect fit requiring the student to make some adjustments to optimally benefit. It may be up to AI to do this.

 

[vanhees71]

What I also find interesting is to investigate students' understanding of concepts. It's interesting what comes out. You'd never come to the idea, how some misconceptions arise. E.g., after a typical QM 1 lecture many students think that all states there are are energy eigen states and that quantum systems are always in such states. I'd never thought that students could come to such a conclusion, but if you think about it, in this typical courses you have a pretty short introductory phase, where the general dynamics is discussed briefly, and it's also not so easy to get familiar with both the mathematical concepts of Hilbert spaces, the Schrödinger equation, eigenstates and eigenvalues and all that and also the physics concepts. Then a large part of the lecture is indeed about calculating energy eigenstates for various problems (free particle, potential pot, different finite potential steps/wells in 1D, harmonic oscillator, and finally the hydrogen atom; often also the elastic-scattering problem is discussed in terms of energy eigenfunctions). That may easily lead to the said misconception. Reading such studies can help you to know about such dangers of misconception and try to avoid them by adapting your teaching etc.

 

[syfry]

@syfry You mention some bad info that derailed [sic] your understanding for years. This is a little hard for me to grasp unless you had long years between your learning experiences. Why wasn't it discovered sooner? Also, it would be helpful to know what information this was. Was it incorrect, poorly presented, or ambiguous?

You also mentioned a learning disability. This makes it additionally difficult to discuss your issues that you seem to want to apply to a large group of poor learners. So has this disability been evaluated? Perhaps there are ways of ameliorating the problem that might be easier than trying to change the way physics is taught.

We all have a set of skills that allow us to do some things better than others. Some can be enhanced others not as much. I'm a relatively slow reader. I took a speed reading course with little improvement.

An example of bad info is something we've all seen, about gravity warping a dip in space. Gravity as the cause of gravity, and that was hard to wrap my mind around.

Usually, if I can follow a series of causes and effects back to a beginning, then it's so much easier to absorb the knowledge. Like perhaps a rube goldberg machine.

When a former physics teacher with a great YouTube channel explained how the popular visual of gravity is inaccurate, merely knowing so had removed a big obstacle, and then when they replied that gravity is bending time a lot more than space, that further enabled me to add another piece to the cause and effect mental playthrough to start gaining a more logical grasp.

The playthrough implied that gravity would bend your timeline toward the center of its source, so that'd be your destination unless if something halted your journey (e.g. the Earth's surface) or if you were to gain enough energy in the opposite direction. It's likely still inaccurate, but at least now I could better reason out what questions to ask to gain a more accurate understanding of gravity.

The ADHD and more was evaluated in kindergarten and they moved me out to a special school for it in 1st grade. From then on that was the pattern off and on as we moved from one city to another.

Each school year in any normal class had a regular pattern: start way behind all students, struggling with everything (my writing assignments full of red marks) and needing the most extra attention, then at some point if something clicked then I'd accelerate toward the best in class after some months. But not always. Science was an exception, barely passing the subject.

Then in high school, started to realize I could 'speedrun' the struggling students in whichever parts of basic algebra I had managed to finally understand after my own struggle with it.

After high school is when I fully realized the knack for speedrunning people through the stuff I've learned after having personally struggled with it.

Then spent years trying to distill that speedrunning mechanism, how the method might be replicated.

Ok will return later after get some sleep, and will then reply to more comments.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If a single pop-science explanation can keep you confused for years, why do you think that an explanation you like happens to be correct? How do you know history is not repeating itself?

If you don't know the topic, how do you know if an explanation is good enough?

Normally, we judge how well we know a topic by how well we can apply that knowledge to new situations - i.e. working problems. If you don't work problems, how do you know if you know something or merely think you do?

 

[Vanadium 50]

gravity is bending time a lot more than space

You do realize that this is, at best an oversimplification on par with the rubber sheet oversimplification, right?

Relativity says what direction is "time" and what directions are "space" is observer dependent. So it's not clear exactly what this pithy line is saying. One could say that the apparent force of gravity is in the direction of the gradient of time dilation, and that is more accurate. One could also say that the path of a falling apple in spacetime is predominantly along the time direction and so curvature in that direction is more evident than in others. That's certainly more true, but not everything is a falling apple: if one were to base an approximation on apples and apply it to light, they would be off by a factor of2: one coule argue with the same degree of (in)accuracy that gravity bends light, half in time and half in space.

These pithy phrases have some value, but they are no substitute for understanding the quantitative behavior of gravity.

 

[Astronuc]

I am saying that, from a scientific standpoint, teaching is a very immature science, simply because it's a relatively new field, you can't do controlled experiments in it (you can't stamp out a thousand identical students and try various teaching methods on them and measure and compare the outcomes),

I think the science of teaching science is an inexact science, since each student is unique, not only in capabilities, but usually different and unknown initial and boundary conditions. Many may 'similar' backgrounds, but some may have an advantage more than others. Some may fit better with certain aspects of science, and some are more proficient at mathematics. Some can deal with an abstract concept (SR/GR/QM/. . . ) well outside of normal experience, but probably many cannot - or maybe some could if started sooner/earlier.

Each student represents a different trajectory, and some may converge, some may become more or less parallel, while others may diverge.

My wife was a teaching assistant, and she had to develop custom-tailored strategies for each student based on a unique set of weaknesses and strengths.Textbooks are useful, since they contain information from experts/practitioners and are usually peer-reviewed. When I was in high school, I used to browse textbooks at university libraries, and take notes. I would visit the university book store, browse textbooks and occasionally buy one or more, and I'd visit a technical book store and buy one or more books on various topics. I was probably in 9th or 10th grade when I bought a book on analytical geometry and another on calculus, since I know if I wanted to study physics and/or engineering, I need to learn calculus. As an undergraduate, I'd browse the graduate textbooks in order to understand what I would need to understand to get to those levels.

The benefit of teachers is their experience; they are practitioners (and some even write textbooks), and they were once students. In theory, they can help guide students, who become practitioners and teachers/mentors themselves - like the PF mentors, advisors and homework helpers.

 

[syfry]

If a single pop-science explanation can keep you confused for years, why do you think that an explanation you like happens to be correct? How do you know history is not repeating itself?

Pardon the later reply, was busy with life and wanted to wait until had enough time to properly reply.

But this one might be easy enough.

Would it be fair to say I had gained from a very complicated subject what you gained from reading the following from my explanation? Please keep in mind that my tone is light hearted and friendly (it's difficult to perceive tone in written text)

It's likely still inaccurate, but at least now I could better reason out what questions to ask to gain a more accurate understanding of gravity

And, would it be fair to say that you might've gone on to misinterpret what I said that's easier than general relativity?

Might it be fair to suppose that if people can misinterpret familiar words that then our ability to misinterpret very complicated things is only natural? (and more expected)

I personally think it's fair, but would like to know your stance as well for the sake of consideration.

To rephrase the quote: I did acknowledge my interpretation as likely incorrect, and that despite it being so, my misinterpreted understanding still enabled me to ask better questions.

Where years ago, I assumed space alone as warped, time also is warped... but if that's incorrect, then please elaborate. Also if my interpretation that matter / energy is warping time a lot more than either is warping space, then please elaborate on that too. Thanks!

 

[syfry]

Relativity says what direction is "time" and what directions are "space" is observer dependent. So it's not clear exactly what this pithy line is saying. One could say that the apparent force of gravity is in the direction of the gradient of time dilation, and that is more accurate. One could also say that the path of a falling apple in spacetime is predominantly along the time direction and so curvature in that direction is more evident than in others. That's certainly more true, but not everything is a falling apple: if one were to base an approximation on apples and apply it to light, they would be off by a factor of2: one coule argue with the same degree of (in)accuracy that gravity bends light, half in time and half in space.

Thanks for having elaborated. I should've read further first to realize you had.

I disagree about my oversimplification being on par with the rubber sheet. For if you had said the following to a person who knew only the rubber sheet:

One could also say that the path of a falling apple in spacetime is predominantly along the time direction and so curvature in that direction is more evident than in others

...that person would have no idea what you're saying. I did understand what you meant. Thanks for helping to expand my knowledge more accurately!

 

[syfry]

Each student represents a different trajectory, and some may converge, some may become more or less parallel, while others may diverge.

My wife was a teaching assistant, and she had to develop custom-tailored strategies for each student based on a unique set of weaknesses and strengths.Textbooks are useful, since they contain information from experts/practitioners and are usually peer-reviewed. When I was in high school, I used to browse textbooks at university libraries, and take notes. I would visit the university book store, browse textbooks and occasionally buy one or more, and I'd visit a technical book store and buy one or more books on various topics. I was probably in 9th or 10th grade when I bought a book on analytical geometry and another on calculus, since I know if I wanted to study physics and/or engineering, I need to learn calculus. As an undergraduate, I'd browse the graduate textbooks in order to understand what I would need to understand to get to those levels.

Maths and science textbooks were hard for me, a counselor in community college had gifted me a used textbook that I then struggled every time to perceive wtf it was even saying, until finally giving up from its indecipherable jargon. And there are students who appear to absorb the textbook's contents more readily.

Since some teachers seem to reach a greater percentage of students by better results in testing, that's probably sufficient to justify doing a study on ways to better the outcomes for most students.

Nothing will be universally effective, but we can try to get as close as possible.

Teachers and physicists are stuck using the technical language they were taught with. So the problem is rooted elsewhere in the approach.

Do we try to teach understanding of how the universe works, or do we instead teach familiarity with arbitrarily phrased words and models that, after first a mighty struggle, will only then start to offer more insights into the next realm of struggle?

If we were promoting understanding of how the universe works, how would we reply to a person from a lost tribe who asks us to explain energy?

Is energy a conserved quantity that corresponds to time symmetry with Noether’s theorem but only when conserved?

Or another explanation having to do with the 4 momentum, a type of bookkeeping, etc?

Would we expect a farm laborer since childhood who never heard of internet to learn English or any major language that's compatible with physics and maths in order for us to properly explain the concept of energy in a useful way?

Did someone at some point decide that we should ignore the possibility of finding any intuitive ways to explore cause & effect, to instead favor focusing on more technical aspects and results?

Perhaps we could've started from a model of energy as activity that can migrate between one thing(s) to another thing(s) by interacting in some way. The activity could perhaps be how something moves, how it'd vibrate or oscillate, also any tiny offshoots of heat in such manner. From there build an understanding that everyday people can more readily work with.

Then people are less likely to imagine the concept of energy as some type of ethereal embodiment of material stuff such as they felt a supposed" energy in the room" or perhaps supposedly imbued with "a strong presence of energy".

I'd claim that everyday people probably might feel disconnected from our current approach to teaching physics and maths.

And perhaps the problem (if indeed there really is a problem) is more solvable than we might suspect.

AI / machine learning is helping with translation between languages even when any lack words and concepts in another, and it's making progress in translating even the languages of animals into our potentially being able to decipher their communications. While it appears ready to help solve problems in seemingly unrelated areas such as computers coding and even in physics, by treating every area in a more unified approach as each being a type of language.

That's got potential to be another part of the toolbox in exploring ways to rethink and transform the language of maths and physics for a better understanding more universally. To me personally it's exciting to think about possibilities from putting a variety of methods to the test and arriving at best practices.

 

[PeterDonis]

If we were promoting understanding of how the universe works, how would we reply to a person from a lost tribe who asks us to explain energy?

I would first ask the person how long he wants to spend learning the concept. Unless his answer is "years", anything you tell him is going to be oversimplified and of limited usefulness.

You might also ask him why he cares what "energy" is. Unless his answer is "because I want to build a power plant to serve my village" or "because I want to be able to judge the policies of my government about energy to see if they make sense", or something like that, anything he "learns" is unlikely to be of much practical value.

Is energy a conserved quantity that corresponds to time symmetry with Noether’s theorem but only when conserved?

Obviously a person from a lost tribe with no education is not going to understand what that means--unless, as above, they're willing to spend years gaining the background knowledge that will make it make sense. There's a reason why we don't try to explain energy this way to anyone until they have at least an undergraduate-level understanding of physics.

Or another explanation having to do with the 4 momentum, a type of bookkeeping, etc?

Same answer as above.

Would we expect a farm laborer since childhood who never heard of internet to learn English or any major language that's compatible with physics and maths in order for us to properly explain the concept of energy in a useful way?

Not until they had spent years gaining the necessary background knowledge. Why would you expect anything else?

We keep coming back to the same issue: having realistic expectations about what it takes to actually learn how a physical theory works. The questions that I quoted above suggest that you expect that if we can find the right magical method of teaching, we can somehow make a person from a lost tribe, or a farm laborer with no background in the necessary subjects, understand a physics concept like "energy" in a useful way in a short period of time (where "short" means "of an order of magnitude smaller than years"). This seems like a totally unrealistic expectation to me, and, I suspect, to others who have posted in this thread. When I made a similar observation before, you said this was a "myth" about your expectations--but then why do you keep using examples that only make sense if it isn't a "myth", if your expectations really are that unrealistic?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Physics isn't about truth. It's about models.

We model a ball as a sphere of mass m. We do not try and consider all 10²⁴ atoms of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen. We don't use relativistic quantum field theory to describe the motion of all these particles. Because that would be silly. We model it as a sphere behaving classically because that tells us its behavior in a manner that is good enough.

Sometimes simple models work. Sometimes they need to be made more complicated to capture the behavior we are interested in. But starting with the simple and moving to the complex is not somehow depriving the student of "truth". There is no "truth". Models are all you get.

You may not like that, but that's how it is.

 

[syfry]

Unless his answer is "because I want to build a power plant to serve my village" or "because I want to be able to judge the policies of my government about energy to see if they make sense", or something like that, anything he "learns" is unlikely to be of much practical value.

Thanks for a thorough reply. We can now probably get to the heart of the matter.

I do agree with you that teaching in the currently established academic ways, with the current textbooks using the currently existing academic language, needs many years of effort and practice for a student to properly grasp even a single concept from the very many concepts they'll learn.

And the type of tests to the hypothesis I'm proposing could result in more an overhaul of epic proportions to the entire approach, to put it colorfully. From that perspective, our adding a great teacher into the current approach would be a mere bandaid onto its allegedly severe shortcomings.

You mentioned the practical value of learning (about a realm of knowledge in a brief overview). I claim there are two.

For the first practical value, let's examine a tiny bit of what the above hypothesis will attempt to explore, by comparing the existing approach (in its entirety) to how some random hypothetical village might've passed their stories from one generation to another.

Because of the great amount of verbal storytelling and knowledge, it's practical to train perhaps only one person who'll memorize the stories that pass from generation to generation. (or two people so there's a backup as a precaution)

Now imagine they had developed writing and they also developed an easy way to print. It's now practical for more people to carry the knowledge. But the advantages go beyond a mere count of people. Everyone is able to read at their own pace, review what they had read, return to any page, and quickly transfer the knowledge to so many more people.

Without the writing and printings, having a great teacher to pass the knowledge and storytelling works is a mere bandaid to their solving the problem of its preservation.

For the second practical value, having an effective enough overview can help the person to dispel superstitions that often are a counterproductive waste of their time and effort, instead of being actual solutions based on a better understanding.

There's a reason why we don't try to explain energy this way to anyone until they have at least an undergraduate-level understanding of physics.

Excellent, glad you do.

I still witness the overcomplicated explanations when a layperson is asking.

Not until they had spent years gaining the necessary background knowledge. Why would you expect anything else?

Such investment of time to get an actionably helpful overview of a concept is what the hypothesis will present as a problem to solve while proposing the types of tests that might confirm or discard what's hypothesized.

The current approach might be like trying to load in an entire sprawling landscape into an older video game as you explore. So what I'm instead considering would be like procedurally generating the landscape, or better yet reveal large areas of the landscape at a much lower resolution do you can make out the shrubs and buildings and objects as partially materialized and faintly recognizable.

Additionally arrange the houses in a progression that ranges from partially built wooden frames to completed homes with various of the steps in between.

Instead of starting with, say, tiling mixture theory and then flooring, followed by drywall mixture theory and walls, followed by plumbing materials and sealants theory, followed by roofing materials theory, all the maths you'll need for those, then start learning the house's exterior and its surroundings until you've covered the landscape that way.

No, the landscape should make sense from the beginning even if you're getting only a faint view, and then after deeper study you can start to get real clarity. (or, after deeper study you can start to get better than a grainy picture... but the grainy picture should still make sense and be accurate!)

I believe that a major part of the problem in our ability to teach is the lack of scientific testing you mentioned in an earlier comment.

Why do we start gravity with Newton and the apple without at all mentioning gravity's effect on time?

Because we must assume that the less we say, the less confusing it'll be to learn. And we assume only because there aren't any scientific studies to guide us on what we can actually include that isn't confusing.

Hopefully after starting to test the hypothesis, we can start to build a handy body of evidence to better our assumptions.

We keep coming back to the same issue: having realistic expectations about what it takes to actually learn how a physical theory works. The questions that I quoted above suggest that you expect that if we can find the right magical method of teaching, we can somehow make a person from a lost tribe, or a farm laborer with no background in the necessary subjects, understand a physics concept like "energy" in a useful way in a short period of time (where "short" means "of an order of magnitude smaller than years"). This seems like a totally unrealistic expectation to me, and, I suspect, to others who have posted in this thread. When I made a similar observation before, you said this was a "myth" about your expectations--but then why do you keep using examples that only make sense if it isn't a "myth", if your expectations really are that unrealistic?

So the miscommunication seems to be about expectations. The teaching is only one aspect, but that alone isn't nearly enough.

We are still using allegedly outdated ways of teaching. (yes I'm alleging... or rather, the hypothesis will do so)

Imagine if we approached the people who hadn't ever heard of internet, and if we wanted to communicate in their own language about what energy means, we could use visuals they're familiar with to do so using VR where they quickly immerse into the concept:

You both enter a VR realm, trained for translation into their language so the guided tour is ready. It'll explain energy as activity or potential activity that can migrate between things by interacting and often transforming.

Explain the VR is color coding the cause and effect, so they'll quickly recognize when the energy is migrating from one to another.

A pebble hits another which then moves a distance. Repeat a few ways and then start zooming in smoothly and slowing the action to see the pebble migrating bits of energy into friction until the pebble eventually halts.

A coconut rolls into another coconut and instantly halts as the 2nd coconut then has gained that energy and rolled away nearly as fast.

Eventually after a series of everyday instances, move into flames that start a campfire.

Also the burning of fat and oils, followed by boiling water or a stew.

Then, burning a clear substance.

Eventually they view into a car much like the one you had driven in and see again the clear substance, its energy migrating into parts of the car and into the air as heat, with the car moving as a result. (the details to include having been already well tested, but this demo would also be a continuation of that testing)

Whether the approach is realistic or unrealistic will become more apparent with testing. There isn't anything magical.

 

[gleem]

Perhaps you should first study the current science of learning before you spend any effort in developing a new approach to teaching.

 

[PeterDonis]

I do agree with you that teaching in the currently established academic ways, with the current textbooks using the currently existing academic language, needs many years of effort and practice for a student to properly grasp even a single concept from the very many concepts they'll learn.

Yes, but you think this is "fixable" by changing how we teach. I don't. I think it is inherent in the subject matter and the overall goals of teaching.

For example:

Why do we start gravity with Newton and the apple without at all mentioning gravity's effect on time?

Suppose we did start with "gravity's effect on time". "Gravity's effect on time" is still just one piece of how gravity works. You don't really understand gravity fully until you understand all of the pieces. Newton and the apple is just as much a piece of gravity as "gravity's effect on time". Does the order in which you learn the pieces really make that much of a difference if your goal is a full understanding? Would students really gain a full understanding of gravity that much faster (or even faster at all) if they started with "gravity's effect on time"? I doubt it.

However, now consider this: our teaching of gravity is not just for those students whose goal is a full understanding. We also want to give at least a partial understanding to students who aren't going to ever get a full understanding, because they don't need it and don't want it. And as a partial understanding, Newton and the apple is much, much more useful than "gravity's effect on time", since the latter is negligible under most circumstances while the former is part of everyone's everyday experience of gravity.

 

[haushofer]

You do realize that this is, at best an oversimplification on par with the rubber sheet oversimplification, right?
[...]
These pithy phrases have some value, but they are no substitute for understanding the quantitative behavior of gravity.

The problem is not in the analogy, but in taking the analogy to literally.

Like the bible.

 

[syfry]

However, now consider this: our teaching of gravity is not just for those students whose goal is a full understanding. We also want to give at least a partial understanding to students who aren't going to ever get a full understanding, because they don't need it and don't want it. And as a partial understanding, Newton and the apple is much, much more useful than "gravity's effect on time", since the latter is negligible under most circumstances while the former is part of everyone's everyday experience of gravity.

That's a geat point.

Maybe part of it comes down to what we consider useful.

In my personal view, people's everyday pondering about sci-fi space exploration and their having a reasonably accurate sense of what that'll take is useful as well.

Your critique is useful because of what it might be revealing. It's possible that since people who've learned physics with the current approach already know how gravity works, they wouldn't easily see a potential advantage by approaching with an experimental way even if easier to absorb the knowledge, because they already have the knowledge and cannot 'unsee' what they've seen, what they've practiced, etc, so cannot readily perceive how their own minds at an earlier student stage would've perceived the experimental approach.

I was sleepy in my earlier comment and hadn't written more clearly.

The current ways seem to teach only as disjointed parts of a scaffolding, then if we want to specialize, then our chosen disjointed part will become constructed and more usable to us as we dive deeper.

I'm instead envisioning to teach a distant view of the whole scaffold, that starts as a faint or ghostly view that'll materialize as you learn it more deeply, or you can specialize in an area so details emerge from its very grainy level of roughness to a more smooth and polished structure, but you still see the rest of its supporting structure, the scaffolding that's been there since the start.

Then for people unfamiliar with your area of physics, you can more easily point them to how what they know leads to what you know.

There's more to my hypothesis than that, for example the language. But hopefully I've communicated better now more fully awake.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Why do we start gravity with Newton and the apple without at all mentioning gravity's effect on time?

Well, you misunderstood "gravity bends time more than space". I would not hold this up as something to be emulated.

Further, most Physics 101 students don't need to know this. They do, however, need to know enough Newtonian gravity do that the planes and bridges they design stay where they are supposed to and don't come crashing down.

Finally, you seem to emphasize something other than physics as it is practiced. It's not about Truth, and its not about words. It's about constructing testable mathematical models. We disagree about the path because we disagree about the destination.

 

[PeterDonis]

Maybe part of it comes down to what we consider useful.

In my personal view, people's everyday pondering about sci-fi space exploration and their having a reasonably accurate sense of what that'll take is useful as well.

The question is, useful for what?

Useful for entertainment? Sure. Useful for practicing your critical thinking skills? Sure (but here you have to be careful, because if you don't already understand a subject thoroughly, you don't have the background to judge whether a claim someone else makes about it is correct, although you can still use various heuristics to spot questionable claims). Perhaps even useful for opening people's minds to possibilities they would not otherwise have thought of. Sci-fi has certainly done that in many cases.

But useful for actually doing scientific research? Or, for that matter, actual space exploration (as opposed to just writing about it in sci-fi)? Not at all. To do those things you need a full understanding of what we currently know in the relevant domains.

I'm instead envisioning to teach a distant view of the whole scaffold, that starts as a faint or ghostly view that'll materialize as you learn it more deeply, or you can specialize in an area so details emerge from its very grainy level of roughness to a more smooth and polished structure, but you still see the rest of its supporting structure, the scaffolding that's been there since the start.

Um, isn't this just describing what we do now? We give students an overview of all kinds of subjects in earlier parts of education; then we give more in-depth treatments of particular subjects in later parts of education when students are zeroing in on their particular subjects of interest. And the more in-depth treatments themselves have multiple levels, each leading to an increased understanding.

 

[syfry]

Well, you misunderstood "gravity bends time more than space". I would not hold this up as something to be emulated.

We agree then!

In my earlier comment:

Yes, definitely would involve physics teachers.

My point was that knowing about time at the beginning would've saved me from a lot of wasted struggle trying to mesh the dip in space with how gravity works. You might've not encountered people's complaints in video comments that it's using gravity to explain gravity, because you don't have a need to watch such videos. But those complaints are in the comments. And I had reached a similar conclusion independently.

My thought is that any teaching should address rampant misconceptions so they dwindle away as quickly as possible.

In reply to your next comment below, that's already in my list of things to immediately teach about science. That it's about modeling that match reality and that we can use to make useful predictions about the mechanics of the universe, how it works, how it's likely to evolve. That part is more about truth: the truth of how and why we do science. Or something like that reason. Which again, the physics teachers who'd be on would help to make that more accurate.

Finally, you seem to emphasize something other than physics as it is practiced. It's not about Truth, and its not about words. It's about constructing testable mathematical models.

 

[syfry]

But useful for actually doing scientific research? Or, for that matter, actual space exploration (as opposed to just writing about it in sci-fi)? Not at all. To do those things you need a full understanding of what we currently know in the relevant domains.

Of course! How does what I said disagree with that? (my communication skills really need work lol)

Um, isn't this just describing what we do now? We give students an overview of all kinds of subjects in earlier parts of education; then we give more in-depth treatments of particular subjects in later parts of education when students are zeroing in on their particular subjects of interest. And the more in-depth treatments themselves have multiple levels, each leading to an increased understanding.

I was thinking that very thing while writing the part you quoted. But the answer is too often no, that isn't how we do it now.

We memorize things without any idea how they'll match up to later things. We often stumble into realizing connections at some random later point.

I later learned about the time aspect in a video. Not in school, which annoyingly had used the dip in space.

They didn't have time in a faint scaffold of the whole picture. We didn't get a whole picture at even the most grainy level. Merely a random stew of disjointed parts of the scaffolding that's missing entire sections, which worsened the vagueness. (really felt that way)

 

[PeterDonis]

How does what I said disagree with that?

If it doesn't, that's good. But as you appear to realize from your comment about communication skills, your previous posts did not make this at all clear.

the answer is too often no, that isn't how we do it now.

Possibly it depends on the schools you went to or the classes you took. Certainly education quality is highly variable.

However, what you described in what I quoted is how we intend to do it now. So if your basic suggestion for fixing education is to actually do what we already say we intend, then I would agree, but I also would not call it any kind of groundbreaking teaching insight. Nor is this fix something that will get done by innovation in teaching methods. It will get done, if it ever does, by fixing the various perverse incentives that now largely determine the quality of education. Whatever innovations are needed to get that done are in fields very different from pedagogy, like economics and politics.

 

[gleem]

I would think after 51 posts that it might be helpful @syfry to restate the intent of this thread in one sentence and summarize what has been learned so far, i.e. the take-a-way idea(s) to see where things currently stand.

 

[syfry]

If it doesn't, that's good. But as you appear to realize from your comment about communication skills, your previous posts did not make this at all clear.

Yep, again my words could've been clearer.

I had meant low res with full accuracy, and my reply about agreeing with you was the part where you said for actual research and for actual spaceflight (as opposed to mere fulfillment from being able to imagine futuristic and sci-fi type of possibilities more accurately) that we'd need the more full picture.

Possibly it depends on the schools you went to or the classes you took. Certainly education quality is highly variable.

My reply was in error because I had misread your reply. Thought you had said that the way we currently do things is to give the students an overview of "all subjects" at the earlier levels. But you had actually said, "all types of subjects". (which differs from my 'whole picture' at the earliest we can)

We disagree about what schools have currently done. If I'm understanding your view correctly, it's that early on in our educational studies we dabble on simpler aspects from a variety of fields, then later we specialize.

I'm saying let's test a low res view of the most wide picture of science that we can possibly manage, and then zoom in on whichever parts we'd specialize in. And transform all of the difficult jargon into a much more learnable experience by scientifically verifying that people truly absorbed and grasp the deepest parts of what they're learning.

However, what you described in what I quoted is how we intend to do it now. So if your basic suggestion for fixing education is to actually do what we already say we intend, then I would agree, but I also would not call it any kind of groundbreaking teaching insight. Nor is this fix something that will get done by innovation in teaching methods.

Let's pause on what I'm suggesting and examine a real world outcome.

I think we can agree that the intro to the new video by Veritasium (if it's accurate about random people who by their age almost certainly should've learned how to order the sizes between a planet, a moon, a star, and a galaxy) reveals that people might not really be learning, even if they pass tests. They might instead be temporarily doing 'something', perhaps mere memorizing. And if so, then hopefully we can agree that scientifically testing the effect of the language (packed with difficult jargon) and approach to everything in how we teach, from textbooks to testing to real understanding, is vital:

 

[gleem]

And if so, then hopefully we can agree that scientifically testing the effect of the language (packed with difficult jargon) and approach to everything in how we teach, from textbooks to testing to real understanding:

Can we agree about what?

And if so, then hopefully we can agree that scientifically testing the effect of the language ..... is?, has?, will?, . . .what?

 

[syfry]

Can we agree about what?

That it's vital. Edited that in now.

 

[PeterDonis]

I had meant low res with full accuracy

There is no such thing.

 

[syfry]

There is no such thing.

Perhaps you're considering formalism as accuracy?

I'm considering accuracy as 'matching with reality'. (instead of merely matching with arbitrarily decided phrasing / convention)

Low res and wide scope:

The spinach plant has gotten its iron from the asteroid mix of Earth's crust.

Specializing at a higher res:

The crystal arrangements of certain asteroids. Genetic variations among a selection of spinach plants that affect their iron uptake. Etc.

The low res still presents a grand view that immediately informs people about how so much of what we see in everyday tools and machinery is from impacts and stuff is continually raining down from outer space in micro amounts. Immersive visuals could accompany every object tracing generically unnamed ingredients back to origins from outer space, with the older and more dense stuff from Earth's earlier hotter era having already gradually sunken while Earth was less solid.

Low res after transforming the jargon and conventions (for max learning with the deepest understanding) could rethink how we categorize things, maybe revisit some of the past ways and merge them with our updated understanding from the later discoveries.

We could teach that each of elements are hydrogen (the earliest atom leftover from the start of our models for the universe) in different amounts from its single atom to fused in greater numbers that change their behavior as we can see by the variety we encounter. Take inspiration from Prout's hypothesis and the whole number rule.

Electrons can link together atoms into groups that add or transform behaviors.

These are ideas for low res. Obviously would need work and accuracy by physicists, but a type of accuracy that prioritizes what we observe in nature and experiments, over arbitrarily decided formalism that hadn't ever been scientifically confirmed as effective for teaching.

 

[PeterDonis]

I'm considering accuracy as 'matching with reality'.

"Matching with reality" is not a binary property. "Accuracy" is usually taken to mean not just matching with reality, but matching it to a very high degree, i.e., with very small error bars and very reliable predictions. "Low res", on the other hand, implies matching with reality only vaguely or generally, with predictions being similarly vague or general and therefore not very reliable (since it's much easier to fool yourself into thinking a vague or general prediction has come true when it hasn't).

Let's try an example:

Low res and wide scope:

The spinach plant has gotten its iron from the asteroid mix of Earth's crust.

Do you have a reference for this? What does the reference actually say? What is the actual "high res" science for this?

 

[PeterDonis]

a type of accuracy that prioritizes what we observe in nature and experiments, over arbitrarily decided formalism

I don't know where you are getting this from. Every theory of physics we have is only accepted and taught in the first place because of what we observe in nature and experiments. And the formalism is not "arbitrarily decided": it is driven by what we observe in nature and experiments. Physicists don't make up a bunch of formalisms and then go check to see which ones match experiment. Physicists in general have to be dragged kicking and screaming to new theoretical formalisms, because constructing theoretical formalisms is hard, and once you've spent your education and career learning one, learning a different one is even harder. So physicists would much rather believe that the formalisms they already know will work--which means that when you find them admitting that current formalisms don't work and they have to develop new ones, it's a sign of something very big (as in the development of quantum mechanics in the early part of the 20th century).

 

[syfry]

"Matching with reality" is not a binary property. "Accuracy" is usually taken to mean not just matching with reality, but matching it to a very high degree, i.e., with very small error bars and very reliable predictions. "Low res", on the other hand, implies matching with reality only vaguely or generally, with predictions being similarly vague or general and therefore not very reliable (since it's much easier to fool yourself into thinking a vague or general prediction has come true when it hasn't).

Yep, that's the type. The more accurate, the better. Good point to bring up!

"Low res", on the other hand, implies matching with reality only vaguely or generally, with predictions being similarly vague or general and therefore not very reliable.

And that's a great point. Will keep that in mind. Want to be careful to avoid a counterproductive impression with the wording, will ponder alternatives.

Do you have a reference for this? What does the reference actually say? What is the actual "high res" science for this?

It's only from general knowledge about the more dense things having sunken, got no idea when the papers would've been written. Also an educated guess that plants cannot create elements, probably only molecules.

Part of the reason to bring physicists on board, and physics teachers is to replace my investigate efforts with people who have more knowledge, training, and much better experience.

And every long journey begins one step at a time, so no reason to do nothing until then.

Rather do my best with what little I have, to prepare a rough outline of the vision that'll serve as a crude example and also get the point across. Then, we can refine and do much better than my own efforts.