Merrill Physical Science
I concluded my review of the 1993 book by warning that any teacher
who tried to use Merrill Physical Science would have a lot of work to
do:
Now I have read that next edition, dated in 1995, and I have both
some good news and some bad news to report. I also have a puzzle to
present, concerning the book's "authors."
Even in its 1993 version, Merrill Physical Science was a book whose
origins were clouded in mystery. The first printing of the 1993
version listed four "authors" -- Richard G. Smith, Jack T.
Ballinger, John D. McGervey and Marilyn Thompson -- along with seven
"consultants." But when Glencoe issued a second printing, which was
practically identical to the first, the lists were revised. Smith,
Ballinger and Thompson remained as "authors," but McGervey was
demoted to the rank of consultant, and more "consultants" were added
for good measure. These changes were obviously specious, since the
book itself was the same product that it had been before.
Now, in the 1995 version, Glencoe has done some more switching and
swapping. Ballinger has disappeared, and Glencoe now claims that the
"authors" of Merrill Physical Science are Marilyn Thompson, Charles
W. McLaughlin and Richard G. Smith. In the 1993 version, McLaughlin
was merely one of the "consultants" who allegedly contributed
"special features." Now he is an "author" and he even outranks poor
Smith, who has fallen from first to last on the "authors" list.
This game of musical chairs is puzzling, and it compels me to ask:
What does the term "author" mean in Glencoe's lexicon? Clearly, a
change in the list of "authors" displayed in a Glencoe book does not
signify that the book has undergone a major rewriting. In the large,
the 1995 version of Merrill Physical Science is just a revised
printing of the 1993. The revisions include the correction of some
typographical and scientific errors, the deletion of some of the
stupidest sidebars, the retitling of some others, and the replacement
of some figures.
When I examined the 1993, I found and catalogued more than 150
scientific errors, including errors of fact, contradictions, and
items that simply did not make sense. I couldn't list them all in my
review of the 1993 book, but I did cite 55 of them.
Looking at the 1995 version, I see that Glencoe has corrected, or
has tried to correct, 36 of those 55 -- about 65%. Of the others
(i.e., the 100-plus mistakes that I didn't cite in my review),
Glencoe has fixed only 25 or so -- some 25%. To me, this bespeaks a
reprehensible attitude. Instead of putting Merrill Physical Science
through a process of thorough checking and rewriting, which the book
so clearly required, the Glencoe people evidently tried to get away
with merely fixing some errors that had been brought to their
attention and could be corrected easily. The editors seem to have
been concerned with merely satisfying certain complaints -- some of
mine, some that presumably were lodged by others -- instead of
producing a new version that would be scientifically and
pedagogically sound.
The 1995 book is slightly improved, to the extent that Glencoe has
made those fixes, but it retains so many errors and absurdities that
it forces the teacher to bear the same burden that was imposed by the
1993 version. The teacher still must read ahead, identify errors,
distribute errata sheets to students, and make on-the-spot
substitutions of real science for Glencoe nonsense.
Will Glencoe produce yet another version of Merrill Physical
Science? If so, I have a suggestion: How about turning this book
over to some authors -- authors in the universally accepted meaning
of that term -- who can attain respectable levels of accuracy and
good sense?
Lawrence S. Lerner is a professor in the Department of Physics and
Astronomy at California State University, Long Beach. His
specialties are condensed-matter physics, the history of science, and
science education.
Reviewing a middle-school book in physical science
1995. 742 pages. ISBN of the student's edition: 0-02-826953-5.
Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 936 Eastwind Drive, Westerville, Ohio 43081.
(Glencoe/McGraw-Hill is a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies.)
Next Time, Glencoe Should Try
to Get Some Real AuthorsLawrence S. Lerner
When I reviewed the 1993 version of Merrill Physical Science, I made
some inferences about the book's history. It seemed to me that a
satisfactory and sometimes good manuscript, which might have been
turned into a superior product, had been mishandled and severely
degraded. The book was riddled with scientific errors and sloppily
written statements that should have been corrected during editing,
and I concluded that Glencoe had used editors who knew nothing about
science and little about writing. The editors' main activity, it
seemed, had been to load the book with auxiliary items, including
numerous foolish, pious, and irrelevant sidebars. [See The Textbook
Letter, July-August 1993, page 6.]
The teacher must carefully read ahead, identify errors, distribute
written corrections to the students, and create replacements for the
activities and end-of-chapter problems that are nonsensical. The
teacher should also advise students to ignore the auxiliary items
entirely, and should reinforce that advice by analyzing a few
sidebars and telling why they are absurd. In fact, Merrill's book
can be useful in teaching a cardinal principal of critical thinking:
Don't believe everything that you read in books. I hope that the
next edition of Merrill Physical Science will be heavily revised and
corrected.
Spotty, Inadequate Fixes
return to top
go to Home Page
read our Index List, which shows all the textbooks, curriculum manuals,
videos and other items that are considered on this Web site
subscribe to The Textbook Letter
order back issues of The Textbook Letter
support the work of The Textbook League
contact The Textbook League by e-mail
The Textbook Letter is published, copyrighted and distributed by
The Textbook League (P.O. Box 51, Sausalito, California 94966)