
The 1997 Chemistry: Concepts and Applications didn't have
any preface or foreword that might have provided clues to the
book's purpose or intended audience, so I was compelled to guess.
I guessed that Chemistry: Concepts and Applications was
intended to look as if it might be suitable for poor students who
needed to complete a "science" requirement -- and I judged that,
even in that context, it would be only marginally useful. Such
students couldn't be expected to extract much science from its
shallow text, nor could they be expected to contend with its
baffling aberrations: Unrelated topics were juxtaposed and
conflated with each other, related items were separated and
disconnected from each other, enigmatic pictures defied the
reader to figure them out, and the book's pages were spattered
with politically correct nonsense that often had nothing to do
with chemistry.
Now Glencoe has produced another version of Chemistry:
Concepts and Applications, dated in 2000.
Almost nothing has been corrected. When I made a page-for-page
comparison of this 2000 book with the 1997 book, I found no
changes at all in the main text, the illustrations or the
so-called laboratory activities. Glencoe has reprinted even the
most ridiculous items that appeared in the 1997 -- the bizarre
"MiniLab" that conflates a metal-alloying process with
alchemy(!), the nonsensical "explanation" of the term noble
gases, the utterly incomprehensible "Metabolic Map" that
seems to have come from an advanced textbook of biochemistry, and
(of course) the mysterious, uncaptioned illustrations that have
no evident relevance to anything. Readers who want to know more
about the content of the 2000 version of Chemistry: Concepts
and Applications should read my review of the 1997 version.
The few revisions that I have noticed in the 2000 version are
peripheral and have little or no significance:
That Web site is a mishmash. Let me describe to you what I saw
when I visited it. At http://www.glencoe.com/sec/science I found
a menu that offered nine items, including "Find Your Book Here,"
"Vocabulary Puzzlemaker," "Quizzes," "In the News," "State
Resources" and "Teacher Forum." (Most of the items were meant
for use by teachers, not students.) When I clicked on "Find Your
Book Here" I got a menu that mixed the titles of some books, such
as Glencoe Science, with the names of school subjects,
such as "Biology" and "Chemistry." I clicked on "Chemistry," and
I got a menu that showed pictures of the covers of two Glencoe
books: Chemistry: Concepts and Applications and Merrill
Chemistry [note 2].
The picture denoting Chemistry:
Concepts and Applications was obsolete. It showed the 1997
version, not the 2000 version. When I clicked on it, a new menu
offered me "Web Links," "Teacher Forum" and "Demonstration
Update." I clicked on "Web Links" -- which, I assumed, would
take me to the sites where the student was supposed to "find out
more" about topics mentioned in Chemistry: Concepts and
Applications.
The "Web Links" section was large and offered a list of links for
each chapter in the book. The relevance and worth of the links
varied considerably. A few of them took me to Web pages that
might have been useful to a beginning student, but most of the
links led to esoteric pages that had little or no practical
value. Indeed, some of the links were clearly useless, and some
were genuinely ridiculous. For example: In the list of links
that allegedly pertained to chapter 1 of Chemistry: Concepts
and Applications, the first link led to a chemistry page
sponsored by Yahoo! -- a gigantic page which presented a welter
of sublinks to other pages, and which had no evident utility to a
student who was just beginning to read Glencoe's book. The
second link led to a page on the American Chemical Society's Web
site, and I again saw a flock of sublinks. The ACS's site was
certainly legitimate, but the items on the displayed page lacked
any discernible relevance to the material in chapter 1 of
Chemistry: Concepts and Applications.
I surveyed Glencoe's lists of links for some other chapters, too.
The list for chapter 4 led off with:
This site features an interactive periodic table with
information on the different groups and all the elements. Visit
this site to learn more about a specific group of elements, like
the Noble Gases.
That one made me wish that Glencoe's writers had taken their own
advice. If they had, they might know what the term noble
gases means.
The list for chapter 10 included a link for "Reading Phase
Diagrams" and another link called "What Are Liquid Crystals?"
But when I retrieved my copy of Chemistry: Concepts and
Applications and checked its pages, I found that the book
said nothing about phase diagrams, and it dismissed liquid
crystals in one incomprehensible paragraph (on page 345).
Obviously, Glencoe's writers had deemed those topics to be
unimportant. So why was Glencoe's Web site telling the student
to go and read about those topics in cyberspace?
[note 3]
It is my opinion that if a given parcel of information is useful
and important, then the student should be able to find it in the
textbook that he is using -- and if it isn't useful and
important, then he shouldn't be led to waste his time by trying
to find it on the Web.
A hastily contrived bunch of Web links is not a substitute for a
logical, coherent, carefully written presentation of scientific
principles, and surfing the Web is not a substitute for using a
logical, coherent, carefully written textbook. It certainly
isn't a way to learn chemistry. Surfing the Web can be
entertaining (just as browsing through an encyclopedia can be
entertaining), and it can be hugely helpful to an experienced
researcher who knows his subject and knows what he is seeking,
but it can't do much for a beginner who needs guidance and focus.
Glencoe's "interNET CONNECTION" notes and lists of links may look
cool, but they will, at best, serve to impel the student toward
formless, purposeless browsing. At worst, they will bewilder
him, discourage him, and confirm what he already has begun to
suspect after trying to read Chemistry: Concepts and
Applications -- that chemistry is an incomprehensible mess of
big words and mysteries.
I said earlier that some of the Glencoe links were genuinely
ridiculous. None was more ridiculous than this one, in the list
for chapter 19 -- "NDB, The Nucleic Acid Database, Department of
Chemistry, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey." When I
followed the NDB link and pored through the NDB site, I had to
laugh at the thought of presenting such abstruse material to the
students at whom Glencoe's book is aimed. Remember --
Chemistry: Concepts and Applications is so badly
dumbed-down that it doesn't even have a respectable explanation of the
term pH.
Taken as a whole, Glencoe's "interNET CONNECTION" stuff looked a
lot like a sham. I imagined Glencoe's editors saying: "Hey, it's
cool to mention the Internet, so let's put some Internet
gimcracks into this dumb chemistry book, let's spell
Internet in some weird way, and let's whip up some batches
of links to impress the impressionable."
The "AUTHORS" page in Chemistry: Concepts and Applications
lists three persons. All three should feel deeply embarrassed.
Notes
Max Rodel is a consulting environmental chemist affiliated with
Environmental Science Associates, in San Francisco. His
principal professional interest is the chemistry of natural
aquatic systems, including the fates of pollutants. He lives in
Mill Valley, California, and he regularly reviews science
textbooks for The Textbook Letter.
Reviewing a high-school book in chemistry
Chemistry: Concepts and Applications
2000. 889 pages. ISBN of the student's edition: 0-02-828209-4.
Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 8787 Orion Place, Columbus, Ohio 43240.
(Glencoe/McGraw-Hill is a division of the McGraw-Hill Companies.)
"interNET" Gimcracks in an Old, Dumb Book
Max G. Rodel
About one year ago I carried out the chore of reviewing the 1997
version of Glencoe's book Chemistry: Concepts and
Applications -- a chore that left me disgusted and
discouraged. Glencoe's dumbed-down and incoherent book, full of
muddled material that had no instructional value at all, was so
bad that it resisted narrative description. I settled for
writing a review that, for the most part, was simply a listing of
the book's defects and failings
[see note 1, below].
Taits [sic] Periodic Table of Elements
