| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Excerpts: REVIEW OF MIDDLE SCHOOL PHYSICAL SCIENCE TEXTS (part 3)
John L. Hubisz, Ph.D., Hubisz@unity.ncsu.edu, (919)515-2515
Final Report: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Grant #1998-4248
The full report (about 100 pages) is at
<http://www.psrc-online.org/curriculum/book.html>
Excerpts from Reviews of widely-used texts (cont.):
SCIENCE PLUS: Technology and Society Annotated Teacher's Edition, Blue
Level, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1997
For a change of pace we will use this book as an illustration of what the
reviewers mean by "the busyness of the book" and the overwhelming number of
topics. Our comments apply equally well to the other texts, just as this
book is equally rife with errors.
This is an integrated series. There are eight units that integrate
physical, life, and earth science. There is an extensive introduction in
the "Owner's Manual" to help the teacher understand the philosophy of the
book. There is also an extensive "Assessing Student Performance." These
first pages provide a discussion about "Guiding Principles" of science -
"Anyone can learn science" and "Science is a natural endeavor." This is
common in all the latest books. Each just uses its own verbiage. Another
aspect of this "Owner's Manual" is the "Aims" of the book. Once again the
same old aims that have been pushed for the last ten years are repeated.
There is an extensive section of constructivism. It breaks it down into
four key steps, which oversimplifies the concept. After the discussion of
constructivism there is a conceptual framework chart that displays content
focus, supporting content, thematic focus, STS, process skills, and a
process skills focus. There is an entire science education class in the
"Owner's Manual." This is truly meant to be all things to all teachers!
Next comes the "Components of Science Plus." You name it; they have it
...
The teacher is now on page 64 and really doesn't know what the book covers,
just how to do it!
... There are 555 pages in the student's book. With the average school
year being about 180 days, this is about 3 pages per day, everyday! This
does not seem like a lot of bookwork, but don't forget the labs, projects,
integration, worksheets, and all of the other ancillaries!
[In 3 pages, Daily Lesson Plans for Unit 7 "Light" are summarized - 3 chapters.]
A great deal of this material can be thrown out. Naming a phenomenon
before actually observing it is a serious mistake and it is done frequently
here. It would be much better to carry out the OSA's experiments and have
the students describe their results. Dissecting a throwaway camera would
teach some of this science in a much more meaningful way. This experiment
shows a very good practical use of lenses. This is no way to teach light.
The order is all wrong! In an effort to be "different," the book has
totally scattered the materials in an illogical sequence and has crammed
much about light in a unit that is to be taught in 20+ days whereas in
reality it would require at least 45 to do it justice. "Less is more" has
not been a guiding principle in this case.
The actual physics isn't too wrong. The order in which the concepts are
introduced is. There is really no teaching of concepts. Students are
supposed to explore and learn the concepts. More often than not, they will
pick up incorrect concepts. Photons are mentioned in chapter seven while
discussing the atom, but never discussed in light. (Studying the internal
structure of the atom is a serious mistake at this level, but since it has
been introduced, it would be appropriate to follow through here.) In an
effort to be different, the "authors" have taken a very good and
interesting topic of physics that Middle School students like and can
handle and messed it up. They, in the process of being all things to all
subjects and standards, have really developed a messy light unit.
------------------------------------------------
PRENTICE-HALL SCIENCE, Prentice-Hall SCIENCE EXPLORER, Prentice-Hall
EXPLORING PHYSICAL SCIENCE, Prentice-Hall (Now Pearson) (Many dates and
many variations.)
... we find a poorer product than what was available in the early 1980s
from the same company.
...
We have found lots of errors. The number is overwhelming. What could
possibly be wrong with the authors? Don't they know anything about
science? This question necessitated our looking into the qualifications of
the authors. The investigation into the background of the "authors" for
these books was much more thorough than the other books reviewed.
Conclusion: The "authors" for the most part admitted that they did not
write the book. A few reviewed and made suggestions, a few contributed
essays, and a few did some other types of work.
A September 6, 1999, transcript of 20/20 Book Report (re-run) (call 212
456-2324 to get a copy) has Sam Donaldson say of the authors, "the
publisher admitted to us that none of them had written the book."
Pearson/Prentice-Hall had ample time after the April 2nd first airing to
request a correction if this were not so.
...
Most of the people whose names appear in the title pages of Exploring
Physical Science lack credentials in physical science. Prentice-Hall has
taken steps that obscure that fact. ...
Prentice-Hall knows very well that most of the people listed as "authors"
are primarily grounded in biological sciences. PH has published their
biological credentials in Biology. Calling them generic "Science
Instructors" in Exploring Physical Science leads administrators and
teachers to believe that this text has had its contents reviewed by these
thirty-six people who are out in the field now in the listed subject.
"Thirty-Six Content Reviewers. Wow! I should be safe choosing this book"
would be a reasonable response. Of the content reviewers that we were able
to reach, only one had a physical science background. He admitted to
reviewing nothing since 1992.
Twelve of the EPS Content Reviewers shown as "Science Instructors" are
credited as Biology Teachers in other PH texts or personally told us of
their biological background. The thirteenth is in math education. In the
best case scenario one third of the listed content reviewers could actually
have had training in Physical Science.
Listing thirty-six content reviewers in the front of EPS must reassure (and
intimidate) students, parents and teachers who are fuzzy on the difference
between momentum and kinetic energy, inertia and gravity or even about the
metric system. Intimidation may not be the goal, but why list as content
reviewers people who did not review the content of the book and why obscure
their actual credentials making it appear that they are competent to review
the content of this book? ...
[6 pages later:]
Where do all these errors come from? There are publishers who would have
you believe that we will have errors with us always. Some errors may be
unavoidable it is true, but, many textbook errors suggest that the
producers of Middle School science texts are cutting corners.
Typically the title pages list several people in the position of "authors",
"project directors", "program authors", etc. Buyers are led to conclude
these people were active in the production of the book. Their credentials
or affiliations are listed in such a way to indicate they were trained in
the subject matter.
Listed editors are presumably experienced with the subject at hand and have
basic general knowledge. Illustrators, artists, photo editors and image
bank librarians may not perhaps have specific knowledge of the subject,
but, presumably have expert status in finding or creating appropriate
images, and presumably have adequate supervision by knowledgeable editors
or authors to ascertain the accuracy of the science involved.
Several dozen people will be listed as "content reviewers", "classroom
reviewers", "field evaluators", etc. Their credentials or affiliations
allow the buyer to think they were qualified to have an active role in the
review of the material. The buyer is led to conclude the whole book was
carefully checked.
...
Unfortunately, most State and School District committees are not aware that
the publisher(s) may take the short cut of not using real experts to
prepare the book. They look for curriculum fit, for gender equity, for
racial balance, and assume the content matter itself will be accurate.
That assumption gets our children and us into trouble.
States and School Districts should not have to provide quality control
measures for private enterprise publishers whose own procedure is so poor.
However, only those prospective buyers who now check the content have a
chance of avoiding the really dumb errors.
What can we do? Errata sheets, web sites, replacement texts, and cash back
are all remedies. It is preposterous that a publisher should reverse a
full-page photo of the Statue of Liberty for five years with impunity (PH,
1993, 1994, 1995 and 1997), or spell "piezoelectric" incorrectly five times
on the same page (PH, 1999).
[A half dozen pages of sample errors follow.]
Prentice-Hall Physical Science of 1984 and 1981 is refreshing with far
fewer errors, although the water phase change graph gets the wrong slope
for steam on p. 353, and curved mirrors are drawn without correct focal
points. This is a substantially different book, and the product of what
must have been a more competent group of writers and a more capable
editorial staff.
Exploring Physical Science of 1977 is a product of Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
and is another refreshing and competent text in which we found few errors
of significance.
[Another 16 or so pages of sample errors in versions in the last decade follow.]
LINEAGE OF EXPLORING PHYSICAL SCIENCE:
Traced through reviews and some state adoption proceedings, the lineage of
EPS is interesting.
...
Sep/Oct '95 "The Textbook Letter" reviewed EXPLORING PHYSICAL SCIENCE,
1995. "Educators Should Avoid This Book Like the Plague"
June 1st, 1996 South Carolina adopts EXPLORING PHYSICAL SCIENCE, 1995.
November 12th, 1996 Florida adopts 2nd edition of EXPLORING PHYSICAL
SCIENCE 1997.
...
About late September 1999, the AAAS' PROJECT 2061 releases preliminary
results of Carnegie study of science books. PHS Physical Science material
is ranked at the absolute bottom.
...
This material was adopted in all twenty plus states which do adopt, except
initially Florida, which had a responsible individual on their team in 1994
and adopted NO middle school physical science texts. In 1996, Florida
joined the rest.
-----------------------------------
CORRECTION: in part 2 I ended with a list of a dozen books and said that
ALL texts reviewed were unsatisfactory. I should have broken them into 2
lists as follows:
Middle school textbooks reviewed in detail and found UNSATISFACTORY:
*Addison-Wesley: Science Insights: Exploring Matter and Energy. M.
DiSpezio, M. Linner-Luebe, M. Lisowski, G. Skoog, and B. Sparks (1996)
*Carolina Academic Press: Integrated Science (2000), 3 Volumes for 6th,
7th, & 8th Grades (1995) (1990
*Glencoe/McGraw-Hill: Science Interactions, Course 1 - 3 (1998)
*Glencoe/McGraw-Hill: Glencoe Physical Science. Charles W. McLaughlin and
Marilyn Thompson (1999)
*Harcourt Brace & Company: Science AnyTime (1995) (6th Grade)
*Holt, Rinehart and Winston/Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: Science Plus:
Technology and Society (1993)
*Merrill Publishing Company: Focus on Physical Science (1989) (1987) (1984)
(1981) (1977) (1974) (1969)
*Prentice-Hall: Science Explorer, Volumes A-O (2000)
*Prentice-Hall: Exploring Physical Science, Second Edition (1997) (1995)
*Prentice-Hall: Prentice-Hall Science (1994) (1993) 6 Volumes
Textbooks reviewed in detail and RECOMMENDED (note: neither are middle school):
*Scott, Foresman and Company: Discover Science (1991) (5th grade only!)
*South-Western Educational Publishing: Science Links (1998) Volumes 1-14
(9th grade). Reviewers said, "Some of the early volumes are excellent. The
quality does not persist through the final volumes"... )
------------------------------------------------
Jane Jackson, Co-Director, Modeling Instruction Program
Box 871504, Dept.of Physics & Astronomy,ASU,Tempe,AZ 85287
480-965-8438/fax:965-7331 <http://modeling.asu.edu>