A recent study of the 12 most-used science textbooks at US middle schools
found that they are so full of errors that none of them are acceptable.
The author of the 2-year study is physics professor John Hubisz, president
of the American Association of Physics Teachers. He said about the
textbooks (which are used by 85% of US school children): "These are
terrible books, and they're probably a strong component of why we do
so poorly in science." He also said that many errors are so basic
that anyone who had taken a science class would be able to catch them.
(So the textbook authors had taken no such class?)
The full text of the report is online at
http://www.psrc-online.org/curriculum/pdf/hubisz.pdf
_______________________________Excerpts_______________________________
Final Report
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Grant #1998-4248
Review of Middle School Physical Science Texts
John L. Hubisz, Ph.D., [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Purpose
The purpose of this grant was to review and critique the physical science
in Middle School (grades 6, 7, and 8, although some schools called Junior
High designate grades 7, 8, and 9) science textbooks with regard to the
scientific accuracy, adherence to an accurate portrayal of the scientific
approach, and the appropriateness and pedagogic effectiveness of the
material presented for the particular grade level. We also noted such
things as readability, attractiveness, quality of illustrations, and
whether material such as laboratory activities, suggested home activities,
exercises to test understanding, and resource suggestions where considered
appropriate.
[...]
General Overall Observations
[...]
The books have a very large number of errors, many irrelevant photographs,
complicated illustrations, experiments that could not possibly work, and
diagrams and drawings that represented impossible situations.
[...]
The general reading level has deteriorated markedly over the last 20-40
years. The publishers, as noted later, have responded to this by dropping
the level of science texts. William A. Henry, III, writes in *In Defense of
Elitism* of Cornell professor Donald Hayes' results of sampling 788
textbooks used between 1860 and 1992. Hayes says, "Honors high school texts
are no more difficult than an eighth grade reader was before World War II."
On further reading, "... the language difficulty of textbooks has dropped
by about twenty percent during the past couple of generations. ... Perhaps
the best measure of what has gone wrong is the fact, attested to by
textbook authors and editors, that publishers now employ more people to
censor books for content that might offend any organized lobbying group
than they do to check the correctness of facts. From a business point of
view, that makes sense. A book is far more apt to be struck off a purchase
order because it contains terminology or vignettes that irritate the
hypersensitive than because it is erroneous." 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 and seemingly up-to-date new information which for the
intended audience is not at all relevant. Our reviewers noted the same sort
of "dumbing down" in these elementary texts and all the reviewers commented
on their encyclopedic nature, not only encyclopedic, but also containing
topics well beyond the capacity of Middle School students.
[...]
[ The report then gives 89 pages of descriptions ]
[ of the worst scientific errors in the textbooks. ]
Conclusions
1. Scientific Accuracy:
Not one of the books we reviewed reached a level that we could call
"scientifically accurate" as far as the physical science contained therein.
The sheer number of errors precludes such a designation. While we were not
looking specifically at the biological component of the texts, there were
obvious errors there also. We were not looking for typographical and
grammar errors, but many were noted and have not been reported. Many of the
obvious errors could be easily corrected, but the subtle errors (including
misuse of technical words or phrases, the promulgation of ideas not
validated by scientists, and promotion of "politically correct" views) that
would leave incorrect implications would be more difficult to root out.
[...]
