No. When talking about material imbalances, if you say Black is up two pawns, it means he has two pawns more than White. Otherwise you say Black is up a piece for a pawn, as in this case.
its alot easier to say black is up two pawns tho
It may be easier, but it's also completely wrong and no serious chess player will know what you're talking about. It might make sense to you, but if you think of material as having such a static value, it will hamper your chess progression. A knight for a pawn is not worth the same as two extra pawns. I would much rather have a knight for a pawn in most situations this early in the game, while two extra pawns could be totally useless in the form of isolated, tripled rook pawns, for example.
Expertise87 is correct of course.
A knight is not ALWAYS worth three pawns. That's why with any chart of piece values it will say "RELATIVE Value of the pieces." A White knight on e6 and a White knight on a1 are not of equal value. In fact, the same White knight on e6 is likely of greater value than a White ROOK on a1 with White pawns on a2 and b2 and a White knight on b1.
I feel like I've heard some masters use "pawns" in place of "points" in material on this website. I don't exactly do the same, but it seems interchangeable enough.