Although the order of topics in the early editions of
PSSC physics is what catches one's attention and seems
most radical at first, I don't think that's what made
it such an exceptional textbook. The new editions use
a more conventional order of topics, but what made it
exceptional then is the same as what makes it exceptional
now: --
(1) First off, PSSC is far more intellectually honest than
nearly all the other commercially published algebra-
based texts. A typical book, such as one I just
pulled off the shelf, introduces work by stating that
"The work done, W, by [a] constant force is defined
as the product of the component of the force along the
direction of displacement and the magnitude of the
displacement, W=(F cos theta)d." It points out
that this is at variance with common English
usage, but not until two pages later does it give
any hint of a reason for the odd definition. PSSC was
never and still is not guilty of this kind of
educational malpractice.
(2) PSSC also had, and still has, an intelligible
storyline: particles versus waves. This is far
superior to the march-through-the-topics
attitude of even the better prereform texts
such as Halliday, Resnick, and Walker.
To me, these are the main issues, and the order of
topics is secondary. For example, doing momentum early
may have some advantages: the student who thinks a
home-run baseball "gets force" from the bat can be
told that it gets momentum. On the other hand, it
has the disadvantage of loading up the students with
another abstract concept early on. The real issue
is not the order of topics but the goals being served
by the topics.
BTW, has anyone taught out of Knight's Physics: A
Contemporary Perspective? It seems wonderful, but I
don't know anyone who's tried it on real live students.
Last I heard, it was only available as a preliminary
edition.