Science Textbook Reviews

[Sun Jester]

I have a child starting fifth grade and tonight he brought home his science textbook. The specific book in question is Scott Foresman Science (2003). I wanted to see if I could find a review of the text and did a little bit of googling to see what I could find, but didn't come up with anything that looked very promising. Having heard on a 'Skeptic's Guide to the Universe' podcast about the horrible state of the textbook industry, I thought it would be nice to find an independent evaluation of this (and other) textbooks.

One positive that I found in the textbook was a short section in the very front laying out the scientific method (not exactly how I would have liked it stated, but I appreciated that it was front and center.) I didn't like, however, that the first unit in the book was on life science and received a 144 page treatment without, as far as I can tell from a quick perusal, mentioning the term evolution or Charles Darwin. Just to be clear, the unit had four chapters and chapter 2 was on Reproduction and Change while Chapter 3 was on Adaptations. So this would seem to be an appropriate place for a discussion of evolution. They also have several 'History of Science' sections (focusing on Mendel, Watson and Crick, the development of corn as an agricultural crop, and the changes to the peppered moth in England.) I think that I would have a section on Darwin before any of these.

So, am I being oversensitive to the exclusion of evolutionary theory in this section of my son's fifth grade textbook?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Yes and no. Yes because it's a 5th grade textbook, if it were high school, you'd be at the proper outrage level. No, because modern biology really is where it is today because of Darwin and he should have been mentioned, at the very least, in the History of Science section.

Sounds like the publisher was trying to produce a non-controversial text.

Did you find any glaring errors in the text? Errors would be more worth getting upset over than an exclusion.

 

[Sun Jester]

No errors yet. But I have only given it a cursory review. Over the next couple of weeks I will likely read through the entire text to see if I spot any glaring errors.

The portions that I have read through so far do not seem to be horrible, but I wish there was more critical thinking and less simple presentation of facts for memorization.

 

[Scottch]

Sun Jester -

Actually, it should be the teacher that is facilitating the critical thinking - not the textbook. The textbook needs to be just supplementation to what the teacher does. Textbooks are simply resources and references to learning (in an effective and engaging classroom).

If not, the teacher needs to be replaced.

Scottch

 

[cbish]

If you're in the US, you should be able to find your states content standards on line. Go the dept. of ed. website. Forseman is a pretty common textbook. Textbook companies are good about complying with content standards. I'd say, no worries