|
|
|
|
|
by mncharity
2424 days ago
|
|
The "Unit 1" video presents atoms using aphysical cartoons misrepresenting size, behavior, structure, and properties. Nuclei size by more than 3 orders of magnitude. One might argue that it's so obviously physically unrealistic and representational, that it's "clearly" iconic. Except that it could easily be made more clearly iconic, but wasn't. And arguments of the form "that's so clearly unrealistic, it won't cause misconceptions" are... just not what happens. Then there are all the usual problems with computer graphical representations of chemistry, biochem, cell and tissue biology. Where "pretty"-but-misleading is prioritized over the messy multiple representations needed to avoid nurturing a rich ecology of misconceptions. > thought [...it] looked pretty promising. Did you? Better than many paper textbooks, yes. Doing the things we know are needed to produce good student outcomes... there's a ways to go. Promising? 3D graphics in general, oh very yes. But this project in particular, I've no idea. The incentives around education content are very dysfunctional. So actually providing deep transferable understanding... is usually not the metric of interest. |
|
If someone progresses to the point where these misconceptions really become an issue I think they would be corrected organically.