What makes a good textbook? I think that we can all agree that a textbook is supposed to provide its readers with the facts. The purpose of a textbook is to teach its readers. However such books that would keep a student engaged and interested are those that have a strong viewpoint and argument. Does that make these books opinionated and to some extent biased?
I always thought that the educational system and process in today’s society (at least in the cultures I’ve been exposed to)is a very dangerous thing. I could go as far as to state that it just seems as another way to defend “their” financial interests. Is it just a business to have students interested in one topic and have these students develop into “experts” who then continue to focus their efforts on what someone else already did because no one speaks of “the truth”? But that statement just seems like a scapegoat, who is “them” anyways? After all, the passing of these experts means that “they” would be dead as well.
It is important to recognize however that we learn by what someone older than us teaches us, our parents, our teachers, religious figures, if any in our lives, politicians, and our professors. Essentially, someone tells us what they have been thought and that is how we learn. We take their words, and consequently their opinions as facts, and therefore our realities. Is that healthy?
Our whole childhood we are thought to take what is said to us to be true. In school we are forced to accept what our teachers tells us. It is not until we realize that the teacher spelled Mexico as Mejico and would not correct it once brought to her attention that we lose that bit of innocence. We open our eyes when we notice the teacher referencing to her teaching manual for algebra because not even she knows this stuff and that is when we realize that our teachers are not an obsolete, all knowing and righteous entity, but a human being just like us. What effect does that have on a developing individual?
As we continue our education it is not until college that we are asked to seek for other’s opinions and then think of our own position on things. Is it then, the responsibility of the student to go and seek his or her own truth and isn’t that truth really to some extent someone else’s already? When do we break free and create our own authority? Is it when we can impose our biases on others?
Finally during this week’s class we heard all sorts of terrible anecdotes about teachers and the impact that their words have on their students. Should teachers be better trained to deal with our children, and shouldn’t they be paid more for the responsibility they hold?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I must say I've been checking the blog all weekend, waiting to post until after at least some of you had done so. Where are you??! I know we have until "Tuesday" but it's now 5:30 Monday and still nobody has responded to Marling's prompt. So I will.....
Marling writes, “a textbook is supposed to provide its readers with the facts.” But who determines what the facts are? In class, Marling also brought up the story of Christopher Columbus—how we are taught he was a hero, etc. and then only later did we find out that the “truth” wasn’t as it was presented to us in those old, supposedly bias-free textbooks. By the time we grow up some of the “facts” about Columbus have become so ingrained in us that we still accept what the (new, supposedly more enlightened) textbooks teach our children: yes, there was the annihilation of the Indians, but still Columbus discovered American in 1492 because that’s a fact.
Or is it? Anthropologist and historian Michel-Rolph Trouillot has written, “…history means both the facts of the matter and a narrative of those facts, both ‘what happened’ and ‘that which is said to have happened’" (Silencing the Past: Power in the Production of History, p. 2). How might have the “facts” of that “day” in early October over 500 years ago be narrated by the native folk living on the “tiny islet in the Bahamas” where “the Genoese adventurer” had landed?
The sentence “Columbus discovered America on October 12, 1492” is not a neutral statement of fact. It exemplifies Trouillot’s point that “the naming of the ‘fact’ is itself a narrative of power disguised as innocence.” That “fact” is a statement of bias whether or not the listener or reader realizes it. The more “neutral” sounding the statement of the so-called “facts,” the more difficult it is to see the biases. If indeed “history is written by the victors,” then as Trouillot writes, “The ultimate mark of power may be its invisibility; the ultimate challenge, the exposition of its roots.”
I prefer to read a text, a book, or a textbook where the author/s are explicit about their point of view rather than masked behind a fake cloak of neutrality.
Marling also asks, “Is it the responsibility of the student to go and seek his or her own truth…? Yes, it is! It is up to each of us to take responsibility to find out as best we can what is true and what is not. But I can’t help but wonder: why don’t we think for ourselves? Why does it take so long for us to be able to do so (and many never do)? Why is pedagogy so often oriented towards training passivity, obedience and compliance? In what ways, if any, is this early and consistent training related to the kinds of adult citizens we become? In other words, in whose interest is it that people be passive, obedient, compliant?
In any math course, most students hear the word “proofs” and want to run. Proofs teach you why 2 + 2 is 4 is true and 2 + 2 is 5 is false. Without proofs, students are taught to understand math by simply following the rules.
When we are dealing with things proven to be true, entire academic fields have their own frame of reference. “If it’s raining now than 2 is an even number.” This statement is mathematically true. It’s mathematically true whether the first part is true or not. It’s mathematically true despite the fact that there is no relation between the two parts of the statement.
Science and philosophy state that truths can only be established through the process of inductive reasoning, where you search and find conclusions about things based on observation. Observation is (a) recognizing or noting a fact measured by an instrument or (b) making a judgment from what we have observed. The first definition implies that the person’s conclusion will be drawn by the instrument they choose to use; the second implies that the person’s conclusion will be drawn by their perspective. Instruments and memory are fallible.
Any book is written because the author had something to say, which is especially dangerous when dealing with a textbook that is supposed to, by definition be “a standard source of information.” I agree with Professor Waterston that textbooks are helpful in supplying us with key terms & definitions. Textbooks as they stand should be considered what journalism calls a “lead.” It tells us Who, When & Where of historical events. To find out the What & How of what happened in 1492, we can look into personal accounts from men on Columbus’s ships, the Indians and the Spanish - not the most convenient, but if we are really interested in learning about history, it’s necessary.
We said in class that textbooks are a thing of the past as they don’t provide students with the chance to reason for themselves as we learn to do out in the world. However, if we were to teach each theme from history through multiple perspectives, this would absolutely take longer than a school year. We begin to reason for ourselves as we get into college because our courses become more concentrated. Our teacher’s are no longer pressured to have students learn “American History” which spans 500 years. We can take a course on the Byzantine Empire or the Crusades. We are granted perspective taking courses which focus on racial, ethnic and religious differences in American history; courses which require you read selections from “People’s History of the United States.”
There are two authorities in a classroom setting. The teacher and their trusty sidekick, the text. The teacher, whose authority has been reinforced since we started school hands us the texts, which we also look at as all knowing and omniscient. I'm not sure I ever really questioned a teacher's or a textbook's authority til middle school or high school.
This analogy may be blasphemous but somehow textbooks seem to be on a similar level to religious texts--we know they are written by men who make mistakes and are not completely objective, just like us, but the texts hold so much power and authority over us and we believe they are the words of an omniscient being. Why is it that despite it becoming popular knowledge now (I think?) that Christopher Columbus did not, in fact, discover America, we still hand out textbooks to kids which says that he did? Why don't we strive to fix the errors in our history books or to make kids look at texts more critically rather than without question? I remember for our tests, we would always have to look at primary documents and critically analyze them but we were never asked to do that with our textbooks or with the material that our teachers taught us.
I think the key to kids asking questions is to encourage them to do so. It is difficult for a child who has been taught to obey authority without question , to then turn around and ask whether there is any bias in the material the teacher has presented to them or to ask from what perspective is the author of the textbook writing the history? No subject is without subjectivity and I think as we grow older and especially once we reach college and are encouraged to study multiple perspectives and ask questions, we are more prone to question the authority of what we read. We demand multiple sources and compare research. When I hear a report saying studies show that eating cupcakes improves your memory, I no longer take it on faith--I ask myself where the study was done, how it was done, whether it has been replicated etc.
I think Professor Waterston asks an important question--"in whose interest is it that people be passive, obedient, compliant?" I think American culture has less of a "kids should be seen and not heard" attitude than many other cultures but here we live in a bubble, where we feel for the most part untouched by what goes on around us or in other countries. We model a sort of "ignorance is bliss" attitude and become passive in the many facets of our lives--culturally, politically, and academically. This keeps the status quo stable and unchanging so that those in power remain in power and those on the lower rungs of society struggle to pay the rent or to put food on the table; they become too busy trying to survive to fight the status quo. By teaching us to be passive and compliant, those in power ensure that the system stays the same and we don't rock the boat too much.
When you say, “Does that make these books opinionated and some extent biased,” I can’t help but think of what I learned in Philosophy class. Socrates believed that there is no way humans can obtain true knowledge, and that what we know is merely opinion. To sum up his idea is that there are
three groups to perceive knowledge or knowing things. The first group is called ignorant (or narrow minded.) The first group basically believes that what they know is true and fact. The second group is those who believe that all knowledge is opinion. Basically, they believe that knowledge changes and humans cannot obtain true knowledge. The third group, which no human is apart of, is Divine knowledge (basically all knowing.)
I think that no book could be dry unbiased fact, because the information given is under the perspectives of the writes/editors. We can say that our history book is not opinionated in the overt sense that it is incredibly boring and filled with “facts.” But the constructors of the history book use their discretion or opinion to choose what parts of history they would like to present and what parts are not important. When you decide whether something is important or not you are using your opinion.
I agree we a nurtured through the knowledge of elders. When we were children we were taught values and facts that are parents/teachers deemed as important. But as we get older we need to realize that not only can these facts be false, but that they have bestowed upon us their view. As children, I can understand why certain historical facts are not dealt with in great detail, but at the same time if our elders keep things from us it makes it more painful to find out the truth. When that sudden slap of realization hits you stand in shock and anger. “Why have I been lied to or what else aren’t they telling me.” It feels like one big conspiracy. But perhaps this is the way it is meant to be. We have to grow up and develop our own perspective to analyze and think critically of the world around us.
This brings me to Katiria’s example of the “White Privilege and Male Privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack” by Peggy McIntosh. As a child we are taught through the perspectives of our elders. McIntosh writes “I was taught to see racism only in individual acts of meanness, not in invisible systems conferring dominance on my group.” Our textbooks and teachers are supposed to be unbiased, but opinion is embedded upon our thoughts and knowledge. The author realized, just like many adults do when they gain more perspective from books that are openly opinionated, is that she was lied to or at least taught to ignore her knapsack.
I think that teachers should openly say that some facts are omitted because authors do not see them as important or in our curriculum we are going to focus on what I feel is important for you to know and that certain things (if anything) can be straight in stone fact.
I feel myself almost as lost as last week when, although we all agreed that we should “do the right thing,” we also recognized that agreeing on what exactly the right thing would be was nearly impossible. Here, we all seem to agree that some great “them” is pulling the strings of everyone from local politicians to textbook manufacturers, and that the only remedy is in a kind of “people’s knowledge rebellion” where corporate/military/government/wealthy elite/college professor truth can be replaced by the better “truth” of the REAL people. Of course I agree that to blindly trust authority is always naïve, and that doing one’s own research is preferable but, as Amanda says, no source is untainted by human bias. Even eyewitness reports in criminal cases are notoriously wrong, so I am not sure we are going to find nirvana in our new formula either.
In today’s New York Times, there is a not-to-be-missed article on the emerging solidarity amongst a variety of right wing groups, from fiscal conservatives to white supremacy survivalists: Tea Party Movement Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right by David Barstow. What unites these disparate groups is a belief that the government, along with a wealthy elite ruling class, is lying to them and profiting off the back of their own hard labor. They too believe that corporate/military/government/wealthy elite/college professor truth should be replaced by the better “truth” of the REAL people. They, too, urge their members to seek the truth in alternate sources of information.
Now, it is easy for me to critique, from my own perspective, the lack of credibility of those sources, the racial undertone of the claims, the way the movement frighteningly veers toward a violent remedy for ills, both suffered and imagined. Yet I see, in both liberal and conservative rhetoric, the human tendency to interpret according to prior prejudices, and to, in fact, not even “see” anything that doesn’t fit those biases. In this way, unfortunately, the truth really is blind.
In psychoanalysis, where we never know for certain, for instance, whether a patient’s recitation of her traumatic childhood or rotten marriage represents a veridical truth, we conclude that a factual history is impossible; the only thing that endures is “historicity”, the act of meaning making around events. We accept that this is as close as we will come to the truth. But here only an individual story is at stake; the implications of the version of truth we chose are not so enormous.
In terms of the kinds of social policy and decision making that derives from the national, political, or global stories that we tell, it is wise to remember that the powerless too (like many of those tea partiers) create tall tales, and that it is difficult always to judge competing claims. Falling back on black and white assessments, no matter your mantra, always vacates the intellectual high ground. Each scenario must be evaluated on its evidence, with none falling merely to the wide sweep of political fervor, of whatever stripe.
I must say that I believed everything that I read in a textbook until college. Once professors start to challenge the students to think critically and to think on your own, it makes one question about the information that we are getting from our textbooks. Towards the end of most of the textbooks, there are discussion sections that leaves the students with questions to think about after reading the chapter.
Marling asked whether it's healthy that we are taking facts and opinions from our elders as facts and I believe that in a way it's not but possibly because we are taught this way. But it's just a matter of time when we begin questioning out of curiousity.
Neethu asked,"Why don't we strive to fix the errors in our history books or to make kids look at texts more critically rather than without question?" I ask myself that question every time I try to explain to my daughter the truth about Christopher Columbus. I guess that it is necessary to build a child friendly historical foundation for our children. However, the foundation should be a jumping off point for knowledge, and not necessarily the place where our inquiries should end.
I think we should stop blaming the school system for the shortcomings of our children and start holding the parents more responsible for the education of their children. Looking back at our class discussion, I realized that the parents played an important role in showing us that teachers are just people and not perfect all knowledgeable beings.
I work with children and I am sadden to see that many parents come to exhausted from work to pay attention to their children's education. The children spend most of their time in front of their televisions and are in some way molded by tv commercial culture. They learn to passively receive whatever junk they watch and not question it. I believe that this is the reason why many people continue to passively accept facts and not try to investigate the "truth", if such a thing exist. This kids do not have their parents to guide them, and to unveil them to the realities of our world.
I bought yesterday my six year old daughter a novel called LETTERS FROM RIFKA, which is Holocaust story told from the perspective of a 10 year old girl. It is very sad, informative, and child friendly. Her father asked me if it was too early to introduce her too such a sad episode of our history, but I disagreed. I believe it is my duty to teach my daughter and not expect for her school to do it for me.
I also noticed on the blog that we are obsessed with finding the "truth." Text books are biased because they mold and distort the truth to their convenience. We do not like them because of that, but isn't every truth tainted by a person's perspective. We should already know that there is no such thing as an absolute truth. However, we should strive to collect as many truths as possible to make up our own truth. That is the point of higher education at all!
Marling says “We open our eyes when we notice the teacher referencing to her teaching manual for algebra because not even she knows this stuff and that is when we realize that our teachers are not an obsolete, all knowing and righteous entity, but a human being just like us” and asks What effect does that have on a developing individual? Well I personally believe the effect can be a positive one because it helps the child begin to make the necessary connection they need to further develop mentally. As Amanda mentioned in her blog response “we have to grow up and develop our own perspective to analyze and think critically of the world around us”, this is exactly how we eventually learn.
As we grow and mentally develop enough to begin to analyze, things can become more and more obvious to us and we begin to create our own ideas and perspectives of things. When Ana discuss her example in class on “Mejico”, I reminisced and remember my own epiphany on why the teachers weren’t perfect. I think it is inevitable; everyone eventually has one of those. With this thought in mind I believe it is the responsibility of the student to go and seek their own truth. In order, to further your learning and successfully gain knowledge we must not only sit in class and learn from our professors we must also seek knowledge elsewhere on our spare time. Whether it’s by watching educational television, reading books, having discussion with friends and family, traveling; whatever the situation maybe we should all have the desire to know more and question what we’ve been taught. As for seeking your own truth and that being really someone else’s truth, it may very well be someone else’s truth. I believe that we all are exposed to some ideas or perspectives and we as individuals decided which one’s we want to lean towards more than others, and ultimately which ones we believe, be it because of firsthand experience or other similar reasons.
Finally I feel teachers should be better trained to deal with children, a little more training never killed anybody. And I think it is more than obvious that many teachers need it! The way our children are taught in schools especially as children, ultimately helps give them a base for their molding as individuals. I look back on things I underwent growing up, some things quite unnecessary and I can see how my former teacher actions affected me in certain ways some negatively, until I eventually learned on my own otherwise.
I read a book, which relates to this very topic, titled "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James Loewen. I found it interesting how the author presents evidence which prove that textbooks merely mention certain details about events and people rather than telling the entire truth. Basically, textbooks omit details about certain people and evidence, if they are considered controversial.
Often, textbooks provide images of people as melodramatic characters that can do no wrong. According to Loewen, textbooks use a process known as heroification to portray people as heroes. Loewen writes that historical figures are portrayed as "perfect creatures" without conflicts or pain. These portrayals of historical figures make them seem non-human. A person who has no faults is non-existent, yet textbooks provide images of many people as such. For example, countless textbooks include information about Woodrow Wilson and how he created the Good Neighbor Policy during his presidency. However, it has been argued that he was also a white supremacist. This information can't be found in textbooks because it is a character flaw that would degrade Wilson. It seems as if textbook writers would much rather omit details about people and events, rather than tell the entire truth, because it could allow young readers to develop a negative perception of those people/events. It is almost as if discussing controversial issues is a taboo within textbook publishing.
An ideal textbook should discuss both positive and negative facts. However, negative details should be written in a subtle manner for younger children. This would better prepare young readers for more controversial issues that they will discuss/face when they are older. It is as if reality is missing when details are omitted from textbooks. The way textbooks are written now, they are hurting readers rather than helping them.
I want to get back to Marling's really important point that teachers get paid more.
Seriously, I'm just now checking into the blog and have been fascinated by this conversation. Sometimes I read the comments with my teacher hat on, sometimes as a student (teachers never stop being students), a parent of small children, a citizen depressed and exhausted by our political system, our media and, alas, by my other citizens (someone once said "we get the government we deserve").
While it is not true that we each individually deserve bad authority figures (parents, teachers or politicians) - Vaughn's friend did not deserve that crummy teacher, many kids deserve better than they get from their parents, I can't imagine what crime I could have committed to deserve Dick Cheney) -- I do think that we have a collective tendency not to ask the kinds of questions you all raise here. It is why classes that emphasize looking at problems from many perspectives are so valuable.
But I also think that we have to start appreciating those authority figures, not to mention citizens, who do change their minds (their actual minds, not who change their opinions based on polls) or are not afraid to show that they don't know something. We tend to see contemplation as weakness, decisiveness as leadership. An anecdote, told to a friend at Harvard Business School praising just this virtue of decisiveness, recalled JFK being asked abruptly how many missiles were in some arsenal. He said "584" and the satisfied official left. His brother turned to him and said that JFK did not know any such thing, but the President replied that the question-asker wanted him to know and that that was leadership.
I was bitten by a mysterious dog several years ago and was sent to a new doctor to talk about rabies, which is not very common in NYC. She checked me out and then said, looking at me in the eye, that she knew nothing about rabies, but if I didn't mind waiting she'd read about it in her books. She actually read the books, looking through the indexes, in front of me! I could not believe that a doctor with a new patient was not trying to look all-knowing and powerful and her true thoughtfulness so impressed me with her character and yes, authority.
The pressure to look like you know everything when standing in the front of the classroom is pretty intense, so I can only imagine what it must be like when writing a textbook or in the Oval Office. Still, if we start placing more value on those figures who look for knowledge and who ask questions, we might get more of what we deserve.
A shout-out to Ana for read
ing LETTERS FROM RIFKA to her daughter. My son, age 8, just finished that in school and was very moved by it.
I never really believed that school was supposed to teach us anything besides memorization, some critical thinking (through papers), and conforming to job expectations (being on time, following orders, adhering to a schedule, etc). Researching for papers all throughout high school, I found plenty of material that contradicted my textbooks and I just took it for what it was: A different account or a different opinion.
Maybe it's a product of my upbringing in a far different environment and being raised in a very politically active family but I have always been skeptical of any and every institution. I never believed I was learning anything until I reached college. I just went through the motions in school and took a lot of life lessons out of the whole experience. However, I don't think this is the way schools should be.
Schools should demand more out of our children and teenagers. Working as a Peer Academic Advisor at John Jay, when I help students through the registration process I'm sometimes shocked as to how unprepared eighteen year-olds are to enter college.
I think it's impossible to teach every different account when it comes to history, especially under the current class-study-test system we employ. I also don't think we should hand everything to students. Our teachers should encourage students to research different accounts of history to supplement what they learn in class. If the findings contradict the lesson: Explain why.
I also feel that history is blunt and that teaching a fifth grader that Columbus slaughtered and enslaved an entire people would do more harm to a young child than good. Likewise, teaching an eighth grader that our country pioneered biological warfare by giving Native Americans blankets covered in smallpox during winter would ruin any sense of patriotism. Kids should have hope and a feeling of goodwill and trust. They have the rest of their lives to uncover the truth, grow cynical, and be appalled.
Post a Comment