Science textbooks must strike a balance between scientific detail and pedagogical complexity.Credit: SDI Productions/Getty
As married Earth scientists and parents to three inquisitive children, ten-year-old twin boys and a seven-year-old girl, we care deeply about the accuracy of scientific education and its ability to inspire young minds.
But when we help our children with science homework, we often find ourselves correcting misconceptions and identifying errors in their textbooks. We give our children simple explanations to correct these misconceptions and have tried to contact a handful of publishers, asking them to edit their textbooks. So far we’ve yet to receive a reply.
As parents, we appreciate simplicity and engagement in teaching, particularly for younger learners, and many of the ‘issues’ we’ve spotted in books are not outright mistakes, but deliberate simplifications to make foundational concepts more accessible. That said, we feel that it’s important to indicate that these explanations are simplifications to help children and teenagers to understand that there are layers of complexity to explore as they progress.
Some mistakes, however, are simply mistakes. And these have, at times, infuriated us as scientists and as parents invested in the education of our children. Here are some examples of both.
Acceptable simplifications
Atomic models. Textbooks often use the Bohr model to depict atoms, portraying electrons as neatly orbiting a nucleus in fixed paths. Although this model is visually intuitive and an excellent stepping stone for understanding atomic structure, it does not capture the probabilistic nature of electron behaviour described by quantum mechanics. Teaching simplified models first makes sense pedagogically, but in our view, textbooks should clarify that these models are approximations. This would help students to understand the evolution of scientific thought and prepare them for more advanced models.
Generalized scientific laws. Similarly, textbooks often present scientific laws as universally applicable, without acknowledging their limitations. For instance, the ideal gas law assumes that gas particles have no volume and experience no intermolecular forces, which does not hold true under extreme conditions. Newton’s laws of motion are foundational principles and work well at standard scales and speeds but break down at relativistic speeds or in quantum contexts. These exceptions don’t invalidate Newton’s laws but show that they are part of broader theories. For young learners, it’s important to present these laws as powerful tools for understanding the world while noting that exceptions exist in specialized contexts.
Geological models. Many textbooks depict Earth’s internal structure as a rigidly stratified series of layers: crust, mantle, outer core and inner core. Although this simplification helps with initial comprehension, it overlooks the nuanced transitions and dynamic processes that occur in and between these layers. Perhaps textbooks for older children could introduce more detailed explanations. Indeed, the mantle is not uniform but exhibits gradual changes in composition and behaviour: for example, the upper mantle contains partially molten regions, such as the asthenosphere. In professional work, geoscientists emphasize the importance of gradual transitions and dynamic interactions, such as convection currents in the mantle that drive plate tectonics. These processes illustrate that Earth’s structure is much more complex than the simplified model often taught at schools.
Mistakes that are unacceptable
Terminological confusion. Physics textbooks sometimes use the terms ‘mass’ and ‘weight’ interchangeably, leading to confusion. Mass is a measure of the amount of matter in an object, typically expressed in kilograms, and remains constant regardless of location. By contrast, weight is the force exerted on an object owing to gravity, measured in newton (the unit of force in the International System of Units), and varies depending on the strength of the gravitational field.
Misusing these terms undermines a fundamental understanding of physics. For example, an astronaut’s mass on Earth and the Moon is identical, but their weight differs because the gravitational pull on the Moon is about one-sixth that of Earth. Without distinguishing these terms, students might erroneously think that mass changes depending on location, which could confuse their understanding of concepts such as inertia, density and gravitational force.
Confusion between sea and ocean. One recurring misconception we’ve observed is the interchangeable use of ‘sea’ and ‘ocean’ in textbooks. Although size is one differentiating factor, the more crucial distinction lies in their underlying geology: oceans are underlain by oceanic crust, whereas seas are often atop continental crust. This confusion underscores a broader issue in science education: the oversimplification of terms to the point at which their precise meanings are lost. Whether discussing seas and oceans, mass and weight or climate and weather, it’s essential for textbooks to clarify distinctions that might seem subtle but are scientifically important. Clear definitions, supported by visual aids such as cross-sectional diagrams or historical examples, can help students to grasp these nuances and develop a more-accurate understanding of complex concepts.
