Several years ago I had to select a new textbook for my calculus-based introductory physics class. I subscribe to Just-in-Time Teaching methods,1 which require students to read the book before the material is covered in class. Thus, the readability of the text by the students is critical. However, I did not feel that I was the best judge of this factor, so I turned the textbook selection into a class project. The students unanimously chose one textbook, which I have now successfully used for three years. The project was decidedly worthwhile, and I gained considerable insight into what students prefer in a textbook.
It had been several years since I had gone through the exercise of choosing a textbook for this course. At that time, the situation was grim; most all the books were pretty much alike. The tables of contents for the top-selling textbooks were nearly identical, as were the problems and examples. Results from the physics education research (PER) community were being published, but this research had little influence on the textbooks published at that time. The book I chose then did incorporate some PER results but mostly as add-ons to the standard text.
I was pleased to find that in 2004 the situation had changed for the better. I examined the top 10 best-selling textbooks listed on the Faculty OnLine website2 and found that while most books retained the traditional format, there were some texts that were very different. There was a greater range of writing styles, approaches, and techniques, and even the order of topic presentation differed somewhat. More attention was paid in both the text and problems to conceptual physics and to developing the students' intuition. The students ended up evaluating nine of the top 10 texts, six of which were fairly traditional and three that were distinctly nontraditional. Based upon my preliminary screening, I felt that I could successfully teach from any of these books.
The textbook selection was a project for my second-semester physics class. There were six students in the class, all of whom had taken the first-semester course. I was concerned about the small number of students, but there was a good distribution of talent and interests in the group, and I felt the class was representative of the larger first-semester student population. There were two physics and/or computer science majors, two math majors, and two chemistry majors in the class.
The students worked in groups of two. I divided the books into two stacks: the traditional and the nontraditional. Each group of students chose three books: two from the traditional stack and one from the nontraditional stack. The groups wrote a separate review for each book. After reviewing all three books, each group was to select its favorite textbook for the final review and explain why they selected this book. The students were given an opportunity to include another book at this point if they felt strongly that an additional book should be in the final pool. All three groups then reviewed the top-rated books. At this point, we called in three senior-level physics students, who also reviewed the top three books.
I find reviewing textbooks to be a difficult task, so I knew I would have to structure the exercise carefully for the project to succeed. Figure 1 shows a summary of a project handout that spelled out in detail what should be included in the reviews and formed the basis for grading the reviews, which counted as 10% of the students' final grade.
Figure 1. Students were not expected to read the entire book. They were instructed to read the Preface and Introduction. They were then to choose two chapters for thorough reading and evaluation, one from each semester's coverage. I suggested that they choose chapters that covered topics that they found difficult to master. They were to compare the treatment in the book they were reviewing to the current textbook. Thus all the reviews used the same baseline for comparison. Finally, the students were asked to give each book an overall numerical rating on a 1 to 10 scale, with “1” meaning “Don't even consider this textbook” and “10” meaning “I'd gladly retake the class for the opportunity to use this book.”
The actual timeline for the project is shown in Fig. 2. The project took about two months. The large gap between the first and second reviews was due to Spring Break. I gave the students some lab time to discuss the project but much of the work was done on their own time.
Figure 2. The students' first question to me was “Are you really going to use the book that we choose?” I assured them that I would, unless circumstances prevented it (recalling a time that a textbook was not available when the publisher promised it). I asked them for their alternate choice as well. The students took on the project with enthusiasm, and I was both surprised and impressed with the results. They openly discussed their opinions, and I think they appreciated the opportunity to take an active part in the selection.
I gained considerable insight from this project into what the students look for and value in a textbook. The students had time for open discussion after they submitted each review. Before the final review they had an in-depth discussion during which they ranked the features that they felt were most important for the final selection. Although I moderated the discussions, I tried to keep my opinions to myself. The students agreed upon most all of the major factors discussed below, which surprised me. However, after I completed this project, I found references for two projects in which much larger groups of students evaluated chemistry textbooks, and many of those students' comments and preferences mirrored my students'.3,4
Based upon the first round of reviews, it was clear that the top consideration for these students was the cost of the textbook. At this time, single-volume hardbound physics textbooks were generally selling for ~$150. The students preferred paperback books and/or textbooks that were published in multivolume format. They did not want the extended versions—i.e., those containing “extra” chapters. Although cost reduction was the primary motivation for these preferences, the size and weight of the book was also a factor. Standard hardbound texts weigh 6–7 lbs, while some extended versions weigh in excess of 8 lbs. This is a real burden for students who often carry several textbooks throughout the day.
The examples provided within the text were the next most important consideration for the students. They wanted to see many examples worked out completely, in detail, and with the reasoning thoroughly explained. They wanted the examples interspersed throughout the text to reinforce material just presented, and not collected together at the end of the sections. They preferred smaller problems that illustrated a single concept to large, comprehensive examples, although the latter were useful to summarize the material. They appreciated “real-world” examples. They found questions throughout the text that checked the students' understanding to be helpful, but they wanted explanations of the answers—many books simply provide the correct answer with no explanation.
These students preferred a casual, conversational writing style with little jargon and some humor. They wanted lots of explanatory detail in the text but not so much that it was overwhelming. There was a delicate balance between providing thorough explanations while avoiding too much depth or unnecessary detail.
These students were very sensitive to the layout of the text. They did not like the use of many different fonts, too much color, or overly busy formats—they especially did not like a two-column format. The flow of the primary text should be easy to follow and not interrupted with figures and examples. Formatting text around figures should be avoided. Students preferred figures to be in the margins and to be large enough to clearly show the points of interest. They felt that only essential pictures should be included, and that these should be discussed in the text. These students appreciated highlighted equations and key points but preferred cool colors. They wanted a clear distinction between the text and examples. They found good chapter introductions and summaries useful. Surprising to me, the ancillary materials (such as CDs, websites, and study guides) were generally not used or valued by these students.
The students felt that any of the top three books selected for the final round of review would be suitable for the course. However, they unanimously chose the textbook Physics for Scientists and Engineers by Randall Knight5 as their top choice. They found it to be extremely well-organized with a clear layout and good use of color. The text was easy to follow. The key equations and concepts were highlighted and formulas were labeled. They liked the fact that the chapter introductions included a section that listed previous material and topics that would be used in the current chapter. They found the text highly readable and commented favorably on the story lines included in the examples. One group's review stated, “I sometimes found myself feeling as though I was reading a good book rather than a university textbook….”6 The students appreciated the large number of examples that were solved in great detail. They thought this book was a bit more advanced than their current text but felt the material was very clearly presented and helped develop the appropriate thought processes. And although price was a major consideration, they told me to get this book even if a paperback version was not available!
I have used this book successfully for more than three years now. It gets off to a slow start, but we end up in roughly the same place by the end of each term, with the same coverage and roughly the same level. I have found, as others have reported, that use of Just-in-Time Teaching methods work well in getting the students to read the text before class.1,7 I get nearly 100% compliance on the pre-class warm-up quizzes, which indicates that the students are reading the textbook, and they generally come to class well-prepared for discussion. The student response to the book is good: anonymous surveys at the end of the course over the past three years indicate that most are satisfied with the book or at least have no major complaints about it. This is in marked contrast to survey results for previous years, for which I always received numerous complaints (not all of which I felt were justified!) about the books in use then. I think that it helps that the students know that the book was selected by their peers.
The textbook selection exercise was certainly valuable for me, but it was also a great experience for the students who participated. Looking at many different texts gave them considerable insight into what was available. Although the students agreed on the final selection, I think the following quote from one of the groups should be regarded as a challenge for the physics textbook community:
“…we still hold out hope of finding a physics book with an `edge.' Can physics be presented with an attitude? We'd certainly like to think so!”6
Many thanks to the participants in the textbook selection exercise: Ashley Collum, Wayne Durant, Brandon Fleming, Michael Lazar, Jenny Lounsbury, Brent Muncy, Nick Patrei, Robert Rogers III, and David Snowberger.
References
Linda Dake is an assistant professor in the Department of Physics at Utica College in Utica, NY. She became a professor in mid-career, after working as a research scientist at Battelle, Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Richland, WA. She has more than 20 years experience in the field of surface science, primarily working with electron spectroscopies and most recently the atomic force microscope. She received her doctorate in physics at the University of Maine in Orono, ME, an MS degree in chemistry from Washington State University in Pullman, WA, and a BA degree in physics from Whitman College in Walla Walla, WA.Utica College, 1600 Burrstone Road, Utica, NY 13502-4892; ldake@utica.edu
Full figure (62 kB)Fig. 1. Outline of the expectations for the textbook reviews. First citation in article
Full figure (39 kB)Fig. 2. Timeline for texbook review project. First citation in article