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]

Re: improving textbooks -- some modest proposals



I think that my point is that it needs to be done frequently so that when a
text is up for adoption you can look it up. Unfortunately when our school
was adopting an IPC text the ones submitted had different authors and titles
from the ones that had been reviewed. TPT only reviewed physics texts about
5 years ago and judged them to be accurate but too weighty. Few comments
were made about pedagogy. When our IPC text was up for adoption I tried in
vain to find a review of it. I also went through one chapter of one
submitted book and found enough errors and problems to convince me that it
was not a good book. I did not have the energy or time to review the entire
book. It was eventually the chosen book. Interestingly 2 texts which have
been barely changed for 20 years were not in the original Hubisz report.
One is the workatext published by Amsco and IPS which was later reviewed.
Neither has been mentioned by Project 2061 either. The Amsco book actually
had some good pedagogy. It had the students do an exploration lab at the
beginning of each chapter.

The problem with the TPT review or one in any published journal is that it
is only available to a limited set of subscribers. Reviews published in
their review columns can not detail all of the problems because of lack of
space. Many of the reviewers of single books do not have the time or energy
to fine comb a text in the appropriate manner, so the review may be written
only on a general impression.

A good review requires the time to fine comb every paragraph and check out
the experiments. While I can spot some things, I suspect that it requires a
special talent and lots of practice to be able to spot every error. I don't
think that I am good enough to do it myself. A staff would have to be paid
$$$. Some extremely competent HS teachers might welcome a summer stipend
for reading a text and writing a report for 2 months. I would say each text
should be read by a HS teacher, and an education or PER specialist, and
possibly a practicing research scientist. Then they would have to consult
before producing the final report. Possibly John Hubisz or Cliff Swartz
could be induced to comment on how much time and $$$ is needed to review 1
volume.

At the moment the publishers can say "That was last year's text, but now
this new one is correct." While this may be a crock, teachers and review
committees have neither the time nor the expertise to check it out. In
addition most committees do not know how to obtain a good review of the
texts.

Since adoption is done once every 5 to 6 years, a yearly review of new
editions of texts might produce enough pressure on the publishers. We won't
know unless we try it. The money and energy to do this is an important
consideration. I think that a federal granting process might be one way to
go. Of course another would be for the publishers to be required to cough
up money for independent testing. The money would go to a textbook
superiorfund and then be handed out as a grant.

I do not know the solution, and I suspect that there is no single solution.
However, without good information I can not make an informed decision, nor
can I hope to help others to make a good informed decision.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

John Clement wrote:

<< I think the first step would be to put together a professional
committee
from AAPT members that could carefully scrutinize every new MS and HS
textbook with any physics in it. The reports would have to be published
openly with all errors exposed on a web site...>>

There are already processes for reviewing textbooks. There is even a
newsletter, with a highly competent set of contributers, devoted to this.
Also the "Physics Teacher" reviews physics texts, and other
journals review
texts in their own areas. I lost the details in a hard drive
crash but some
of the readers may know.

The state commissions and textbook manufacturers have always completely
ignored such feedback. Why would a new committee get different results?

Chris Horton