Re: High School Textbooks

[John Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>]

I think that John put a finger on one of the major problems with texts.
Most reviews of texts can only really test texts for accuracy, and the
material covered.  One such review was published in The Physics Teacher a
number of years ago.  Project 2061 ( www.project2061.org ) tries to rate
texts also on whether they support good learning and teaching.
Unfortunately precious few texts have been actually tested using the FCI or
the FMCE, and none of the glossy productions put out by the big publishers
have been tested.

A few exceptions are Minds on Physics which has articles available at
http://umperg.physics.umass.edu/projects/MindsOnPhysics/default and Workshop
Physics www.dickinson.edu .  Both of these have been created using research
as a guide, and have been field tested.  WP has shown good gain on the FCI,
while MOP promotes expert like concept based problem solving.  WP may be
more suitable for an advanced class.  The Active Physics series
unfortunately has not been rated and based on what I have seen is probably
not very good at getting students to understand physics concepts.  The old
PSSC book has a lot to recommend it, as many ideas from it have been
recycled and used by some of the research based curricula.  MOP is
affordable, while WP is more expensive because it is workbook style.  If WP
is adopted it is possible for a HS to get it on CD-ROM and print copies
under license, which can cut costs.

The major textbook publishers generally produce books which can be adopted
in the big states like TX and CA where books are approved for adoption
statewide.  These books include way too many things, and are basically fact
based with simple problems.  The eye catching graphics actually distract
from the physics.  They do not use a learning cycle approach, which is vital
to improving student thinking.  There is evidence that the usual end of the
chapter problems actually promote plug and chug style problem solving, and
dampen expert problem solving.  In addition the texts do not help teachers
with the problems and misconceptions that students have.  By contrast MOP
alerts teachers to many but not all problems, and makes some valuable
suggestions.  In all I think that most of the conventional texts are not
very good.  The research based books, while best at promoting student
learning may require a steep learning curve on the part of the teacher, and
may meet resistance from the administration, students, and parents.  I find
that I learn at least as much as my students when I use research based
material.

As far as testing the effectiveness of texts goes, the publishers have a
vested interest in not testing, and of relying on testimonials.  Anecdotal
evidence is extremely unreliable as evidence while it may be useful as a
guide to what you may wish to test for.  Separating the effect of a text
from other techniques may be extremely difficult.  Hake's survey did note
that research based labs worked better when combined with other research
based material, and all conventional courses had low gain.  From this I
would infer that none of the conventional texts had any outstanding
features.  Some courses which used conventional texts had high gain, but the
gain came from the active engagement techniques, and not the text used.

If you MUST select a conventional text, you could get one at random, and
then mostly ignore it.  Use research based material such as Mazurs Concep
Questions, TST labs and ILDs from Vernier, and get ideas from the various
research based curricula such as McDermott's Tutorials.  Alternately the
Modeling Workshops of Hestenes provide all the material you need for
mechanics, and even have a reader that could be used as a minitext, so you
do not need a commercial text.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> Tony Wayne wrote:
> > We are in the process of adopting new high school physics
> textbooks. So far,
> > for high school level, I have only 2 books; one by HOLT and one
> by Merrill.
> > Does anyone else know of any other publishers and authors of a
> high school
> > textbook?
>
> John Denker Wrote:
> It's appalling how little systematic experimental data there is on
> how well one textbook works relative to another.  It wouldn't take
> a rocket scientist to figure out how to conduct some systematic
> experiments.  And 0.01% of the annual textbook budget would easily
> cover the cost of the experiments.....