NAME: DARRELL DULALCHAN

ID: 03725218
TITLE: Book Review New Lower Science Secondary Science 1 Caribbean Edition by Tho
Lai Hoong, Ho Peck Leng, Goh Ngoh Khang, David Akaloo

This report serves to critically analyse a textbook that is used currently in my practice of
education. One might question why criticize a tool of learning which is supposedly created from
joint collaboration of experts in the particular field. However, it is important that these essential
learning accessories be criticized since teachers should be critical educators. In this report I will
be reviewing a textbook which is been a part of the Trinidad and Tobago textbook rental program
list since I have been teaching for the last six years. The title of this book is New Lower Science
Secondary Science 1 Caribbean Edition (Hoong, Ho, Goh & Akaloo, 2006). This review will be
criticizing the textbook with regards to the Nature of Science (NOS). It will determine if the
textbook imparts the underpinnings of the NOS since the understanding of the NOS is important
in the education of science students.
McComas, Clough, and Almozroa (1998) define the NOS as a, fertile hybrid area which
blends aspects of various Social Studies of Science including history, sociology and philosophy
of science combined with research from the cognitive sciences such as psychology into a rich
description of what science is, how it works, how scientists operate as social group, and how
society itself both directs and reacts to scientific endeavors (p.4). The understanding of the
NOS is essential in the teaching and learning of science students and in turn the textbooks which
are utilized as essential learning tools in delivery of the science curriculum. Five arguments for

the incorporation of the NOS in the education of science students has been made by Driver et.al
(1996). These arguments included the:
1. Utilitarian View - understanding the NOS is necessary if people are to make sense of the
science and manage the technological objects and processes they encounter (p. 16).
2. Democratic View people must understand the NOS to make sense of the socioscientific issues and participate in the decision making process (p. 18).
3. Cultural View such an understanding is necessary in order to appreciate science as a
major element of contemporary culture (p.19).
4. Moral View to understand the norms of scientific comments, embodying moral
commitments which are of general value (p.19)
5. Instructional View the NOS supports successful learning of science content (p.20).
This textbook is provided to form 1 students of secondary schools in Trinidad and
Tobago. It is used primarily as an educational tool and its preface states that it is, a series written
in compliance with the latest syllabus for lower secondary science in the Secondary Education
Modernisation Programme (SEMP) of the Ministry of Education.This textbook is part one of a
three part series of textbooks that are aimed to prepare students for the National Certificate of
Secondary Education (NCSE) Science Examination. The NSCE science curriculum states in its
vision statement that, the science curriculum will : Stimulate students curiosity and creativity,
Develop competence in the use of the knowledge and methods of science, Develop students
critical awareness of the role of science in everyday living. (SEMP Secondary Curriculum
Forms 1-3 Integrated Science (2008), p. 21).
The first criticism of this text is that of the first chapter which introduces students to
science and the Scientific Method. The textbook portrays the Scientific Method to be one of a
number of steps. It describes the Scientific Method to the students utilizing a flow diagram. This
is wrong since there is no one way to do science and not all science follows the Scientific

Method. The Scientific Method is a myth and was not even invented by scientists but rather by
historians and philosophers of science. This is a serious flaw of this text especially at the fact that
this text is an essential tool in initiating students to science education. Hence, by utilizing this
myth in the textbook it creates in the mind of the developing science student a wrong principle of
science which will be propelled throughout their scientific educational development.
In this book the NOS is depicted as experimental and procedural. It doesnt depict that
science is in fact a creative process. It is also evident throughout the book that the students are
encouraged to associate science with experimentation. Even though this may be beneficial in
some cases it fails to explain to the students that school laboratory exercises are not true
experiments as well as it doesnt highlight the fact that many scientists have used nonexperimental methods to enhance the knowledge of science. It doesnt showcase to students that
experiments are technical procedures that require stringent methods of control and test groups.
Another criticism of the book deals with the authors contradiction of their definition of
science. In the book science is defined as, a body of knowledge that is consistently changing
through the use of better and more accurate tools for investigation (Hoong, Ho, Goh & Akaloo,
2006), p. 2). Though this definition may be adequate, it is contradicted by the statement which is,
that scientific law always appears to be true. This statement is a dangerous one, in that it paints in
the students mind that scientific law is finite and therefore no further study and exploration is
required as it pertains to the concepts that the law explains. This deteriorates the mind of the
student in that it limits students to not question why or how. Hence it deviates from the NOS in
which one should ask and question the history to these laws. It undermines the one word WHY,
that is essential to the foundation of science and has been a bedrock of science over its history.

Hence, it transforms our students into metaphors of textbooks in which they become solely an
avenue of information regurgitation instead of the critical thinkers we aspire for them to be.
Further examination of the book did have some good characteristics. The book not only
focussed on the theory but also focussed on the practical aspects of science. It gave students
some insight as well as asked students to think critically on their own. Every chapter had a
section in which higher order questions were asked to facilitate this critical thinking process. The
author was also correct in explaining that there was a difference between science and technology,
another myth associated with the NOS. The authors also did a satisfactory job in elaborating on
the social aspects of science. Every chapter of the book did make a connection between its
scientific concepts and its implication to everyday life.
It is important that textbooks be critiqued since teachers must not rely on the textbook
for imparting knowledge to their students but however as a means of supporting learning in the
classroom. In this critique since textbooks are designed primarily to assist students it is important
that teachers determine that there is no misinformation taking place and that the textbook
facilitates the objectives as laid out by the teacher. Textbooks are limited as well in that they may
not represent up to date information. It is therefore necessary that the teacher critiques the
textbook to identify the shortcomings of the textbook as well as inform the students to the correct
information.
In my experience as a teacher I have had instances in which there was misinformation
via the use of the textbook. This provided a problem for me in that information from the textbook
was outdated and hence criticized the information which I taught in my lessons. This
misinformation also undermined the trust with my students since they were in a state of limbo in
determining which information presented towards them was correct. Therefore by presenting

wrong information this textbook had directly affected my teaching efficacy since my students
questioned my ability as a teacher. Since then it was imperative that I critique the text that I was
utilizing during my teaching as well as creating amendments to the text prior to the students
being introduced to it.
It is apparent from this textbook that its aim is solely to not teach the NOS but instead to
achieve its mandate in covering the requirements of the Science syllabus it is meant to cover.
This textbook is provided to form 1 students of secondary schools in Trinidad and Tobago. It is
used primarily as an educational tool and its preface states that it is, a series written in
compliance with the latest syllabus for lower secondary science in the Secondary Education
Modernisation Programme (SEMP) of the Ministry of Education. (Hoong , Leng , Khang
( 2003)). This textbook is part one of a three part series of textbooks that are aimed to prepare
students for the National Certificate of Secondary Education (NCSE) Science Examination. The
NSCE science curriculum states in its vision statement that, the science curriculum will:
Stimulate students curiosity and creativity, develop competence in the use of the knowledge and
methods of science, develop students critical awareness of the role of science in everyday
living. (SEMP Secondary Curriculum Forms 1-3 Integrated Science (2008), p. 21). From my
analysis of this text I can concur that it in essence does achieve its mandate to ensure that
students are prepared for the NCSE examinations. It does also serve to develop some curiosity
and creativity but however it fails in delivering to students the ideal NOS.

REFERENCES

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hoong, T., Ho, P., Goh, N., & Akaloo, D. (2006). New lower secondary science.
Singapore: EPB Pan Pacific.
McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the
nature of science in science education. Science & Education, 7(6), 511532.