haruspex said:How is the student to know that the texture, odour and magnetism assessments do not require numerical answers?
Yes, plus a tendency to use scientific-sounding terms even when they are not being used with scientific accuracy.SciencewithDrJ said:I think the problem is this: the teacher either lacked in-depth knowledge and consequently misworded the assignment, or she did have that knowledge but did not have enough educational skill to simplify it enough for her students so that it would remain simple, but still accurate.
SciFi said:Hi all. I'm reviewing my daughter's science homework and I disagree with how things are being presented. I wanted some feedback from everyone here to get a sanity check on my own thinking. The exercise is this: answer whether these properties of matter are either an observable property or a measurable property: shape, texture, odor, length, state, sink/float, weight, temperature, magnetic, volume, density, mass.
1. I have a problem with the "or". If we cannot observe a property, how could we ever measure it? The act of measuring requires observation. I can observe whether something's solid, but I can also measure it according to different criteria (e.g., the rate of molecular translation, etc.); I can observe something's texture, but I can also measure it (usually via lasers these days); etc.
2. sink/float: these are actions: verbs, not nouns or adjectives. How can these be properties? Density is a property, but sink/float depends on the density compared to that of the fluid it's in (among other things). It's like asking if sit/run or ascend/descend are observable properties or measurable properties. They are actions to be observed or measured, but not properties of the matter itself.
3. weight: weight is a force, not a property of matter. That is, changing the curvature of spacetime in which a mass resides changes its weight accordingly without any change to the mass itself (although the consequence of the modified force might change the mass). No?
4. more generally, isn't any observable property also measurable? If we can observe it, we can visually measure it, even if this form of measurement is highly imprecise. It seems to me "observable" and "measurable" are not mutually exclusive.This seems like a poor exercise to teach scientific concepts: am I crazy and/or ignorant (NOT mutually exclusive)? Thanks for any opinions.
haruspex said:Yes, plus a tendency to use scientific-sounding terms even when they are not being used with scientific accuracy.
True, but arguably the teacher that triggered this thread was trying to get the students to think more. It could have worked if she had required the students to explain their answers and accepted variant answers if they were adequately justified. Her insistence that her own answers were right is particularly sad.SciencewithDrJ said:There is emphasis on facts rather than teaching the skill of asking questions
symbolipoint said:Let's have an informal vote. How many members reading disapprove of that competition?
haruspex said:True, but arguably the teacher that triggered this thread was trying to get the students to think more. It could have worked if she had required the students to explain their answers and accepted variant answers if they were adequately justified. Her insistence that her own answers were right is particularly sad.
SciencewithDrJ said:I hope this is not going off topic, but I believe it touches deeply on the very essence of this thread: proper science education in schools. There is emphasis on facts rather than teaching the skill of asking questions and learning how to discover answers about nature. Lawrence Krauss says it best in this short video on the Big Think: