|
|
 Ratings
|
|
|
| Reviewed: |
Jun 12, 2005 by Teacher Education |
| Overview: |
A review of science textbooks published for middle/junior high school physical
science classes. The focus of the reviews conducted was to critique the
scientific accuracy, adherence to an accurate portrayal of the scientific
approach, and the appropriateness and pedagogic effectiveness of the physical
science textbooks often used in middle school grades The reviewers had physics
teaching backgrounds that varied from middle school to graduate school faculty.
|
| Learning Goals: |
Provide in-service science teachers who find they must use one of the reviewed
texts with information regarding the accuracy and usability of the texts under
consideration.
Provide in-service teachers and school administrators who may be serving on
textbook selection committees, with cautions or concerns that should be
addressed during the review process.
Provide pre-service science teachers with examples of cautions that should be
taken before using published textbooks.
Provide feedback to prospective authors and publishers as to the flaws found in
current publications in the physical science textbooks.
As a result of studying this article,
more teachers should develop strong and
proactive relationships with scientists in the community who should be involved
in selecting effective textbooks.
|
| Target Student Population: |
Pre-service and in-service science educators at both the graduate and
undergraduate level.
Faculty in science departments who may be contemplating authoring textbooks for
use in public school programs.
Publishers who seem to be more concerned with marketing than accuracy of
textbook content.
|
| Prerequisite Knowledge or Skills: |
Pre-service and in-service science educators at both the graduate and
undergraduate level.
Users of this learning object need some knowledge of physical science and basic
chemistry for complete understanding of this article. Without knowledge of
teaching/learning pedagogy and learning theory, some statements in this article
could be misleading.
|
| Type of Material: |
Reference? Final Report of The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Grant
#1998-4248 for Review of Middle School Physical Science Texts
|
| Recommended Uses: |
1. Highlights areas of significant caution that in-service teachers and school
administrators attend to when selecting a textbook to be purchased by a school
district. Given that most states/school districts can only purchase one set of
texts every five to seven years, they must make sure that the texts are accurate
and serve the needs of their students and faculty.
2. A warning to publishers that the accuracy of the content and pedagogy used
in a textbook should be more important than sales.
3. A caution to in-service and pre-service teachers that good teaching is more
than just relying of what is found in a textbook. Research, developing
relationships with the outside learned community is essential to giving students
accurate and meaningful learning experiences.
|
| Technical Requirements: |
Adobe Reader is recommended.
We applaud the three format presentations of the article (Word, html, and pdf).
While the Adobe Reader version offers the most universal format, the variety is
good for those who are using a dial up connection where speed of downloading is
slow. The word document is a viable alternative.
|
|
|
|
| Strengths: |
Not one of the middle school science books reviewed reached a level of
scientific accuracy. The review of these texts listed error after error that
should be of major concern to educators, parents and publishers alike. This is
very important in an era where the limited number of ?highly qualified? science
teachers is reaching a major crisis in schools, and the use of non-qualified or
scantly qualified teachers is common. Textbooks should be accurate and presented
in a way that fosters learning and teaching. Since many middle school science
teachers have little training in physical science, this material could help
them reflect on the idea that science is not history or social studies and that
the encyclopedic nature of textbooks containing topics beyond the capacity of
middle school students is worth questioning. The authors subscribe to the view
that "to get answers from nature, one does experiments.? The review did not
necessarily present a strong link between sound learning of the science and
scientific accuracy, but the caution to users is worthwhile. The poor quality of
textbooks may be another reason for the lack of interest of students to pursue
further study of the sciences both in high school and college.
|
| Concerns: |
A major concern is that authors and reviewers of textbooks should be drawn from
both trained content experts and science educators. Both have expertise that
is needed in the writing of quality textbooks. Little specific evidence is
presented to demonstrate that both an educator and a content expert reviewed
each of the books addressed. The lack of support for criticism makes one wonder
about the credentials of some of the reviewers. For each error noted,
the
correct information should have been presented and referenced. The reader
should not need to chase all of these errors and find correct solutions. In his
discussion of Chapter 21, ?Light and Images? for Technology and Society
Annotated Teacher?s Edition published by Holt, Rinehart, Winston in 1997, the
review states, ?After reading the unit, analyzing it and working with some of
the explorations, it is definitely squirrelly.? First, the language is less
than professional, and the statement that follows did not offer an alternative
approach to the topic. The article criticizes textbooks for a reading level that
"has deteriorated markedly over the last 20-40 years" and "reviewers noted ?
'dumbing down'" in the texts, with an average eighth grade textbook reading
level at grade 6. But anyone with pedagogical expertise knows that students
with a reading disorder may struggle and give up if the text is written at a
level they cannot navigate. Since a text at an eighth grade reading level is one
that could be read and just understood by a 14-year-old pupil having average
reading ability and the statistical distribution of reading ability in a
population of a given age is 'roughly normal', the derogatory terms
"deteriorated" and "dumbing down" seem inappropriate. Teachers are grateful
when a textbook presents good content at a level even poor readers find
intelligible. Educators now deal with diversity in the classroom that was not
there 20 years ago.
|
|
|
Potential Effectiveness as a Teaching Tool |
Rating:     |
|
| Strengths: |
Because of the depth of this review, the information can prove useful at both
the undergraduate and graduate level classes in teacher education for in-service
and pre-service teachers. This review can be used to challenge the readers to
determine the accuracy of the ?science? presented in textbooks and to examine
this information against the standards and topics presented by the
various
learned societies associated with the content. An expected outcome is to
encourage any physical science teacher to make contact with a nearby expert
scientist. Those in teacher education programs can also use the review to look
at texts to examine the pedagogy used to present the content. Portions could
be
used to encourage in-service and prospective teachers to investigate the
relationship between a scientific understanding of a concept, the textbook
presentation of the concept, and student learning. Some inaccuracies in a
textbook may have no bearing on student learning. In other cases, even accurate
information can be presented in a way that reinforces misconceptions. The
suggestion that teachers should network with professionals such as the American
Association of Physics Teachers to identify material such as Powerful Ideas in
Physical Science that approaches content by eliciting students' notions about
science phenomena, present "disequilibrating experiences," and engage students
in carefully designed experiences to construct mental models is powerful. On the
other hand, one might also consider whether the text and supplemental material
present the content in a useful way, i.e., gaining learner attention, sequential
and logical presentation of topics, showing how one builds upon the mastery of
the one before and the one to come, use of graphics to explain a concept, a
check for understanding throughout the text, and a challenge for upper levels of
thinking.
|
| Concerns: |
Graphics could have been used to highlight the errors and quality points stated
by the author. While highlighting textbook inaccuracies is an important
service, two significant concerns stem from the manner in which some
inaccuracies are presented: (1) Inaccuracies that are mentioned but not
explained might reinforce the misconception that only physicists can be good
physics teachers. Teachers should be able to wonder why it is incorrect to
define mass as a measure of inertia or to use meters/sec/sec as a unit,
but no
information is presented for them to wonder about, so they are left having to
memorize that those are textbook errors. (2) Some judgments are speculative or
are not supported by evidence. A statement like the summary that "no student
will increase his or her understanding of science by using this text" requires
more evidence than is presented here. In the review of the textbook, Technology
and Society Annotated Teacher?s Edition, a review of Chapter 19-The nature of
light states that ?The book recommends that this chapter be done in 7 days. 11
days may be pushing it if you are to integrate the materials and do most of the
activities.? No suggestion is made as to how one may accomplish this in the
timeline given. The use of a video was recommended as a better way to teach
this unit, but nothing was said about the pacing of instruction or the sequence
of instruction. How certain are the authors that "Publishers are much more
interested in satisfying a group of selection committee members who typically
have little knowledge of the subject matter, but are impressed by pretty
pictures"?
|
|
|
Ease of Use for Both Students and Faculty |
| Rating: |
|
| Strengths: |
This document is part of a larger web site, but is easy to navigate. The
selection of multiple viewing modes is useful to the viewer (Microsoft Word,
Adobe Reader [pdf], and HTML).
|
| Concerns: |
The Adobe Reader document is 98 pages long. The length of the pdf file may
cause difficulty for the viewer. If they are using a dial up connection, the
time for downloading could be prohibitive and thus a valuable document may not
be seen. The writing tone changes from one textbook review to another. The
variety of writing styles and fonts used through out the document leads one to
think that there was no central editing. There is also no consistency in how the
errors and quality statements are presented in the report. A consistent format
would be preferable and allow the viewer to more effectively use such a long
document. This inconsistency also leads one to wonder who actually authored
the work.
The author should spice up the HTML programming for easier reading. Tables are
used for one list of textbook errors,
but not for others. Since very few readers
are interested in reading all about all the textbooks reviewed, bookmarks and
better organization of the content are needed. One suggestion for enhancing this
site would be to edit the format and add boldface and italics. Another
suggestion is to add a table of contents with ?hotlinks? bookmarks and
navigation buttons to save the viewer time in going through the document.
|
|
|
| Other Issues and Comments: |
|
| Comments from Author: |
As a result of the study the author has developed a website, which he is
continuing to add to and where most teachers will find useful information:
http://www.science-house.org/middleschool/
|
|
