Louis

You clearly have not been a science teacher!  It may be the case that
in history and other humanities subjects the textbook is a pretty
useless concept, because the essence of these subjects is 'divergence',
rather than convergence on the currently accepted understanding. At
least, at HE level, humanities teaching should be llike that in my
opinion.  In these subjects the teacher can select chapters from books
or journal papers for discussion in class, for stimulation and even
controversy, and can use primary sources, rather than tendentious
secondary stuff, like textbooks.

However, science teaching remains very like Thomas Khun's
characterisation of it at undergraduate level: "a dogmatic initiation
into a pre-esatablished tradtion" (or something like that) and thus
textbooks 'necessarily' are convergent on this pre-established tradition
or in another Kuhn-speak, the paradigm accepted by the community as
'true', to the exclusion of other so-called 'cranky' paradigms.
Divergence is not just discouraged but 'punished' by exclusion, poor
marks, etc. There have been attempts to create textbooks which are more
'divergent' but they have not been generally accepted by the teaching
community.

Before I became a teacher of English lilterature and also the
philosophy and social studies of science, I taught maths, physics and
chemistry at what we call A level over here, or what might be college
graduation level (last two years of K12) in the USA.  I taught on a
one-to-one basis in a private 'crammer' for students who had already
failed their A levels.  I had each student for 10 minutes an hour on
average.  My task was not to teach the curriculum but discover problems
students had in understanding each aspect, and help them through.  Thus
the textbook was at the heart of their reading for comprehension, and
the problems I set were the means of discovering the extent of their
understanding or misunderstanding.  Each student was at a different
point in the subject even if two consecutive students were even studying
the same subject, so there was no way of teaching them successfully in
groups, except on occasion when I thought it would help 'expand' their
understanding or appreciation.

The students parents paid a lot of money, from which I was paid very
little!  But I could order whatever books I wanted for loan to the
students  for the duration of their studies. What I learned was that no
one textbook was always successful in helping a student to learn
everything in it.  Where a student was experiencing difficulties I would
assign a new textbook for that section, and a third if the problem
continued, and only then would I spend a lot of my time trying to find a
way for the student to understand.  Students would develop preferences
for a given textbook, and we would use that one as far as it helped
them.

So I would not completely dismiss the concept of the textbook, like you
do, particularly in science teaching as it is configured today, but
would agree that it is extremely unlikely that one such book will suit
each student in every aspect, and even less likely that one particular
book will suit all one's students.  Perhaps the best is to ask students
to get a library copy for a week or so and brouse through, try another
textbook and so on until they find something that generally they like.
The teacher may use photocopied extracts from different textbooks (under
copyright regulations governing photocopying) to add variety.  Of
course, also adding critical elements to the debate (from recent
research papers, or primary sources, for example) so that students
understand the limitations of *the textbook*, and start to question
beyond it.

Also, I am not averse to my academic colleagues making a few bucks from
writing *good* textbooks.  Are you?  To be honest, I find most of
soi-disant 'research' publishing far more questionable in terms of
corporate profiteering.  Already the world of academic publishing smacks
of what I would call institutionalised vanity publishing.  Most of what
is published is pretty thin and useless for the advance of knowledge,
and it is only possible because institutions pay subscriptions for the
journals in which their staff are published, and staff need publication
for career advancement rather than the advancement of human knowledge.


Now that academics are often asked to pay something towards the
publication of their work, the 'vanity' is surely explicit, though from
another perspective, more legitimate.  Vanity publishing has a role for
those who are prepared to pay their own hard earned money to see
themselves in print, and sometimes they are successful in kick-starting
a real writing career.  Institutionalised vanity publishing is far less
legitimate, as it is not my money I stake in publishing my research
paper, but the tax-payer's, or the student's, or the alumni's. As a
consequence, I can do things like 'expand my research' by spreading it
over several papers etc! And publish, or be damned. But unfortunately,
it is so often damned rubbish!

Best wishes.

Chris O'Hagan



Professor Christopher O'Hagan
Learning Consultant
Directorate
University of Derby
Kedleston Road
Derby, DE22 1GB
England

Tel: 01332 591883
Fax: 01332 597731

"Check ears and other sensory equipment for socially induced
limitations."
Captain Beefheart.