teaching - Earth Science Teachers' Association

TEACHING EARTH SCIENCES ● Volume 26 ● Number 3, 2001
Reviews
Science for GCSE: Double Award, 2nd edition by Graham Hill
Hodder and Stoughton. August 2001, £15.99, 328pp.
ISBN 0-340-80044-5.
Ifirst encountered this title, in the
Spring, in its first edition, when asked
to review it for the current ESTA exercise
of evaluating the Earth science content in
all the available school Science textbooks.
This review relates to the Earth science
content, with only passing reference to
the other aspects of science.
My first reaction, on hearing of the
appearance of a second edition, was one
of annoyance – in order to be fair to the
publisher, I would have to look at it all
over again! On second thoughts, perhaps
the many errors in the first edition
would have been corrected, so I turned
to the task with expectancy. I soon
realised that the wording and diagrams
had been “tweaked” in many places, but
that very few misunderstandings had
been altered; new errors had been
introduced, and various topics, such as
transport and erosion had been deleted
altogether. So, what is it like now?
At first sight, the book is beautifully
produced, and well laid out. It allows more
space than the dreaded double page spread
approach, and is full of good photographs,
which must surely attract the average Y10
and 11 student: indeed, it is aimed at those
who are likely to be in the A* to C grade
category at GCSE. It is divided into the
traditional categories of Life processes and
living things; Materials and their
properties and Physical processes. The
Earth Science content is distributed
throughout the three sections, with most
of it, of course, being in the Materials bit.
Of the book’s 322 pages (excluding
index), Earth Science in the widest sense
occupies about 10%, which is par for the
course, in comparison with other books
surveyed. However, it also ranks too
highly in the list for the number of errors
per page, which is around 2, depending
on how many times you count things like
“liquid mantle” on the same page!
So, why am I so disappointed with
this book? I have to say that it gives the
appearance that the Earth science has
been grudgingly squeezed in, to satisfy
the National Curriculum, and not
because the author derives any pleasure
from the subject. I assume that he is
thoroughly familiar with his own
specialism, but it is very obvious that he
has not studied Earth science. To their
shame, the publishers do not seem to
have supported their author by asking a
competent Earth scientist to check the
manuscript before publication. In
general, the approach does not fulfil the
spirit of the National Curriculum,
which is to get students to evaluate the
evidence – as found in the rocks; for or
against evolution; plate tectonics etc.
Instead, there are brief statements of
facts (or near-facts!) which students are
expected to digest, with minimal effort
at working things out for themselves. A
classic example of the author’s own lack
of application of the evidence is found in
the perennial problem of the nature of
the mantle. Throughout most of the
book (e.g. pp 199 and 200), the mantle is
stated as being liquid, yet on page 301 it
is implied, in the briefest treatment of
seismic waves that I have seen, that S
waves do not penetrate the core, because
it is liquid, yet they are able to pass
through the mantle.
It is all too easy to pick out the errors
in any book and to share a giggle over
coffee, but there are so many serious
ones here, that I think another approach
is needed. Examples include the
statement that limestone is a good
example of a mineral (p192); there is
confusion between weathering and
erosion (p 194), and no coverage of
transport and erosion, per se at all;
reference to plates as being “crustal”, and
no mention of the lithosphere (although
this is named in the National
Curriculum). An appropriate
photograph of a beautiful fossil fern
(albeit referred to as being preserved in
slate) appeared in the first edition. In the
second edition however, it has been
replaced with a superb fossil fish, with
the caption, “This fossil of a prehistoric
fish was left when the rest of it became
crude oil”. The most inaccurate item in
the whole book is the diagram on page
196, purporting to show “the formation
of igneous, sedimentary and
metamorphic rocks”. Among several
interesting phenomena, it depicts
“igneous rock next to mantle, e.g.
quartz, granite”, and it really must be
redrawn before too many students see it.
Overall, it is not even the gross errors,
such as those identified above, so much
as an almost indefinable air about the
book, that one cannot always put a finger
on, yet which confirms the impression
that the author is uncomfortable when
writing outside his own field.
So what can ESTA members and other
readers do to be helpful? I suggest that
readers might like to consult whichever
colleague is responsible for buying books
for the school, and offer to look at any
inspection copy which might be ordered,
to see if you could help correct the main
problems before any purchase is
confirmed. Alternatively, if the school is
already equipped with the first edition, at
least students will hear of erosion and
transportation! Perhaps you could then
prepare an erratum page, to be inserted
into each copy. With a group which has
already learned its stuff, the book could be
issued for the students to spot the errors
themselves – an instructive exercise, when
used with the right group!
In common with other firms, the
publishers have expressed their
willingness to take part in the overall
ESTA review exercise, and we believe
that they have done so, partly so that they
can attend to any errors and omissions
before further editions appear. This
independently solicited review will appear
before the major project is completed,
and may appear more embarrassing to the
publisher, but I do hope that it will
prompt them into taking the appropriate
action in time for the next edition.
Peter Kennett
Sheffield
117 www.esta-uk.org