Do most textbooks not help their readers?

[PhysicsMarco]

I've discovered this essay, which argues that most textbooks are actually written for the authors and not for the readers. I also think that most textbooks are not very helpful after all, but I find the phenomenon still strange.

Writing a textbook is a long, tedious job and certainly not financially rewarding.

So what are reasons why most textbooks bad?

 

[Stephen Tashi]

Do you find that the site that publishes that little essay (physicstravelguide.com) is superior to other sites explaining physics? It certainly isn't shy about "tooting its own horn".

Whether a textbook is good or bad depends both on the textbook and the reader of the book. Some readers are not suited for some textbooks. In the context of a course, the usefulness of the textbook depends on the book, the reader, and the lecturer. Some lecturers diverge from the approach of the textbook. (Some lecturers are required to use certain books by their schools.)

 

[PhysicsMarco]

Do you find that the site that publishes that little essay (physicstravelguide.com) is superior to other sites explaining physics? It certainly isn't shy about "tooting its own horn".

Whether a textbook is good or bad depends both on the textbook and the reader of the book. Some readers are not suited for some textbooks. In the context of a course, the usefulness of the textbook depends on the book, the reader, and the lecturer. Some lecturers diverge from the approach of the textbook. (Some lecturers are required to use certain books by their schools.)

The reading recommendations on some pages are quite good, but currently there are still too many "gaps".

I agree that "Some readers are not suited for some textbooks". However connecting readers with those textbooks is a tough problem. However, I still think there are lots of textbooks that are practically useless for most students. On the other hand there are textbooks that are amazing for almost all students.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

Textbooks, like all commercial products, are written to be sold to the consumer. But the consumer is the professor, not the student. It's the professor who makes the textbook selection, not the student. It's the professor who receives the sales pitches from the publisher, not the student.

Just as fishing lures are made to attract the fisherman, not the fish.

 

[PhysicsMarco]

Textbooks, like all commercial products, are written to be sold to the consumer. But the consumer is the professor, not the student. It's the professor who makes the textbook selection, not the student. It's the professor who receives the sales pitches from the publisher, not the student.

Just as fishing lures are made to attract the fisherman, not the fish.

This makes perfect sense and explains a lot.

 

[symbolipoint]

I've discovered this essay, which argues that most textbooks are actually written for the authors and not for the readers. I also think that most textbooks are not very helpful after all, but I find the phenomenon still strange.

Writing a textbook is a long, tedious job and certainly not financially rewarding.

So what are reasons why most textbooks bad?

Without ever my looking at the essay, I say, forget the essay. Did the textbooks YOU used help your or not help you. Many or most of mine did help ME, the student, and certainly other students.

 

[stephenkohnle53]

For me textbooks have never really helped me because they are usually 5 to 10 years old, occasionally from the time of the USSR. Plus it does not help that my teachers often make whatever I am learning boring even though I love the subject. I think it primarily is based on how the teacher uses the book and whether or not the teacher gets up to date books. Sadly it often seems that I have learned more on this site or other sites on my own time than from school.

 

[jtbell]

because they are usually 5 to 10 years old,

How does that matter for core subjects in a field like physics or math? For recent research you should expect to go to the original papers, or review articles, and that doesn't usually happen until graduate school or late undergraduate.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

For me textbooks have never really helped me because they are usually 5 to 10 years old, occasionally from the time of the USSR.

Some of the newer textbooks may be written in a style that is more to your liking. Physics Education Research (PER) has made significant contributions in the last 25 years or so, and it has affected the way some authors write their textbooks.

But the bottom line is indeed "So what?"

Whatever your reason for disliking a textbook, you can always find other textbooks, both paper and electronic versions. They are now inexpensive and plentiful, as long as your source didn't acquire them directly from the publisher.

Plus it does not help that my teachers often make whatever I am learning boring even though I love the subject.

If you're bored that's an emotion experienced by you. Many lecturers are boring, and it does make it a challenge to learn from them. It's particularly bad if they are not following a textbook. I've taken many classes like that, but one of them had an interesting twist to it. I soon discovered that this (particularly boring) professor wasn't following the textbook that he had chosen. In fact, he wasn't even using the same notation! But I discovered from talking to students who had taken the course before that the professor liked the book he had used in the past and since it was out of print he couldn't choose it as the textbook for the course. I got my hands on a used copy of that textbook and suddenly his lectures began to at least make sense. He was hard to follow when you didn't know where he was coming from!

I think it primarily is based on how the teacher uses the book and whether or not the teacher gets up to date books. Sadly it often seems that I have learned more on this site or other sites on my own time than from school.

School is for teaching. The learning goes on in your own mind.

 

[Mark44]

I've discovered this essay, which argues that most textbooks are actually written for the authors and not for the readers.

I find this difficult to believe, regardless of what the essay says.

I also think that most textbooks are not very helpful after all, but I find the phenomenon still strange.

Saying that "most textbooks are not very helpful" is an overly broad statement with no evidence provided to back this claim.

Writing a textbook is a long, tedious job and certainly not financially rewarding.

It's certainly difficult to write a textbook, but authors whose books sell well are rewarded handsomely. In the realm of physics texts, Halliday and Resnick must have done very well. There are also a number of calculus textbooks, such as those by Thomas & Finney (and later, just Thomas), and Stewart, that have done very well.

So what are reasons why most textbooks bad?

"Most"? What evidence can you show that most textbooks are bad?

Textbooks, like all commercial products, are written to be sold to the consumer. But the consumer is the professor, not the student. It's the professor who makes the textbook selection, not the student. It's the professor who receives the sales pitches from the publisher, not the student.

That's true, but the professor is likely to attempt to match the textbook's level of presentation with the abilities of the students.

Just as fishing lures are made to attract the fisherman, not the fish.

Of course there are fisherman with widely varying skills, some of whom might get sucked into buying a lure just by its appearance. Skilled fishermen, on the other hand, know what fish are attracted to, and will buy or even make their own lures and flies that are actually functional.

 

[sophiewilson0191]

If you know what to read, it can help.
Better understanding on the content.
I do think textbook helps.
How do you think people learn from the old days?
They research and read books.

 

[russ_watters]

I know it is old, but it was just resurrected, so...

I've discovered this essay, which argues that most textbooks are actually written for the authors and not for the readers.

The primary purpose of selling anything is to make money for the seller. Additionally, textbook writers may be creating tools for their own use* or to enhance their reputation. So all roads point to a selfish motive on the surface.

But, contained in #1 and #3 is a need to please the target audience who then pays for the book in money or respect. And in order to sell to those people, the textbook needs to be useful/helpful. So I disagree with your assessment that they are or are driven to be unhelpful.

*This would be more common in industry and with handbooks, not textbooks, but it is close so I included it.

 

[vela]

Textbooks, like all commercial products, are written to be sold to the consumer. But the consumer is the professor, not the student. It's the professor who makes the textbook selection, not the student. It's the professor who receives the sales pitches from the publisher, not the student.

That's true, but the professor is likely to attempt to match the textbook's level of presentation with the abilities of the students.

I think both factors come into play. Most professors, I would hope, choose a textbook they think will be useful for the students. But the problem is that the professor's experience reading the text is likely going to be very different than the students'. An explanation that seems clear to the professor might be incredibly opaque to most students. The professor can recognize which parts of the text are background fluff that can be safely ignored, while students might think they have to know what's in those passages. And so on.

If you know what to read, it can help.
Better understanding on the content.
I do think textbook helps.

I agree students generally need a textbook. There's not enough class time to cover all of the material. Students need to spend time outside of class practicing and filling in the gaps, and a textbook can be an invaluable resource. That said, students have to know how to read and use the book effectively. It's a learned skill, and many students just aren't good at it. The linked-to essay completely ignores this fact.

How do you think people learn from the old days? They research and read books.

Just because that's how it was done in the past doesn't mean it's the best way to do it now. Lecture has been the traditional method of instruction for intro physics, but research has shown it is ineffective. Should we stick with straight lecture because that's how it's always been done?

 

[symbolipoint]

I've discovered this essay, which argues that most textbooks are actually written for the authors and not for the readers. I also think that most textbooks are not very helpful after all, but I find the phenomenon still strange.

Writing a textbook is a long, tedious job and certainly not financially rewarding.

So what are reasons why most textbooks bad?

I have not read the linked essay yet. I still have some comment.

I have not found most textbooks to be bad. On the contrary, I have found most, but not all, that I have used, were good. Maybe this depends on what level of study the book is written. Intro/calc based Physics, Intro & Intermediate Algebra, some other science textbooks - either very good or excellent. Maybe at some higher levels, the books may be written with the expectation that the student knows how to read and think at a more advanced level.

Lecture- still an important way to deal with instruction. Lecture should be interactive and does not need to be restricted to just what's in the course assigned textbook.

Hey, somebody; pick a specific upper level course, and tell us how was the textbook, and how was the lecture in relation to the textbook.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I have not read the linked essay yet.

It's bad. Really bad. It sounds like it was written for an early high school English class. It's full of unsupported assertions and jumping to conclusions, While I believe there are shortcomings with many textbooks and we could have a serious discussion about that, the essay doesn't do that.

 

[Ophiolite]

The essay linked by the OP appears to be addressing, primarily, physics textbooks. I have very limited exposure to these, so the following comments relate to textbooks on Earth Science, Biology and Astronomy. I have in excess of 100 textbooks in these fields. (I like to collect older textbooks and trace the development of theory and style.) I have found each of those texts interesting and helpful. None are perfect (though some are astounding in their quality), but all are capable of providing a positive experience to a student committed to learning.

The essay contains this remark: "Most students never learn that they have to try dozens of textbooks until they find one that actually speaks a language they understand."
Well, duh! Who could possibly have thought it? Learning requires hard work, commitment, imagination and exploration of multiple sources. I suggest that the fault, if fault there be, is more likely to lie with the attitude of the student than the quality of the textbook.

 

[symbolipoint]

Okay I just read the essay. My experiences were more fortunate. Maybe things have changed in the last few years. Maybe what books are assigned to students depends on time and place. Any student (of Physics) needs some strong motivation to really dig-into a book to study from it. Usually, the way it's written is meant to be correct and precise, and example problems are given which help to support the written/published instructional discussions. Rereading is necessary, and trying the examples is necessary, too. My only academic student experience in Physics was the standard undergraduate Physics for the Science & Engineering students and the books were of Sears, Zemansky, & Young; and Halliday & Resnick. They were not "easy" but they were as easy as could possibly been made.

 

[Dr.D]

In the years 1979-1981, I used a textbook that I thought was great, but my students hated it. I listened to their complaints, filtered them, and in 1984, I started writing a textbook. I followed many ideas from the one I had previously liked, but I tried to incorporate the complaints I had heard previously. I did all of this to facilitate the learning for my students, hardly a selfish motive. I made pennies on the hour spent developing the book, and today, 30 years later, I am engaged in preparing a second edition of the same book. The technology has not changed all that much, but I see things that can be improved (I've gotten feedback from all over the world), and the preparation/presentation/appearance of the book can be improved. I don't expect to earn very much this time either, but that really is not the purpose.

 

[EngWiPy]

I have relied mainly on textbooks for all my courses. I think that a main textbook and suggesting other books (and other sources) can help students, because different books on the same subject talk about the same thing in different styles for different levels and in different details.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

I do think textbook helps.
How do you think people learn from the old days?
They research and read books.

Just because that's how it was done in the past doesn't mean it's the best way to do it now. Lecture has been the traditional method of instruction for intro physics, but research has shown it is ineffective. Should we stick with straight lecture because that's how it's always been done?

The traditional lecture method has been shown to be ineffective. But lectures have value and so do textbooks. They are tools that can be used effectively but they are also tools that can be abused.

 

[symbolipoint]

The traditional lecture method has been shown to be ineffective. But lectures have value and so do textbooks. They are tools that can be used effectively but they are also tools that can be abused.

What is a traditional lecture? Maybe I have attended mostly untraditional ones.

 

[Dr.D]

Wow! Who knew? For an ineffective method, I've certainly managed to use the traditional lecture to very good effect for large numbers of students, as well as it being a major part of my own education. Ineffective, huh? Maybe so, but it works pretty well as far as I've seen.

 

[symbolipoint]

The traditional lecture method has been shown to be ineffective. But lectures have value and so do textbooks. They are tools that can be used effectively but they are also tools that can be abused.

The meaning there may aim to distinguish between effective use of lecture abused use of lecture.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

The meaning there may aim to distinguish between effective use of lecture abused use of lecture.

That's a good way to look at it. Abusive use of the lecture method versus effective use of the lecture.

For example, a short lecture explaining a concept that students are currently engaged with in some learning activity may be just what's needed to get the concept to gel in the students' minds. But a long lecture where students are passively observing the teacher may have little to no effect on student learning.

I consider the lecture method to be the ground state. Doing anything else requires more energy. Ever have a professor who walks in the classroom, asks where we left off last time, and proceeds to lecture over the next topic in the textbook. That's an abuse of both the lecture method and the textbook, but that is often what's done in many classrooms.

 

[vela]

Wow! Who knew?

Researchers in physics education and how people learn, for one. And it does depend on the students. Traditional lecture might be perfectly appropriate for experienced learners, but in my experience, for most freshmen in college, it's not.

Anyway, I didn't mean to derail the thread onto a tangent about lectures. My point was that the argument that books should be used just because that's how things were done in the past isn't a very good one.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

What is a traditional lecture? Maybe I have attended mostly untraditional ones.

A traditional lecture course is where the instructor carefully explains everything to the students, and the students are free to passively listen. Test results show that that scheme does very little to raise average test scores, when the test questions are designed to probe understanding of topics.

 

[itfitmewelltoo]

I've discovered this essay, which argues that most textbooks are actually written for the authors and not for the readers. I also think that most textbooks are not very helpful after all, but I find the phenomenon still strange.

Writing a textbook is a long, tedious job and certainly not financially rewarding.

So what are reasons why most textbooks bad?

To the contrary, I found the textbooks an absolute necessity. I was sure to study the book in advance of the lecture and actively participated. For me, the lecture was a conversation between myself, the professor, and the rest of the class. The lecture was an opportunity to check my understanding of the material. There were always a number of students, in every class, that were active participants in the conversation. And we were keenly aware of the time constraint so as to not leave with unaddressed material.

 

[Dr.D]

From my own teaching experience, I know that students tend to panic when it is announced that a course will be taught without a textbook (as I have done a number of times). This indicates rather clearly that the students attach value to the textbook, even if it is just as a security blanket.

 

[ZapperZ]

I am still not convinced that the original premise that most textbooks do not help their readers has been clearly established and supported by evidence. I just don't see it. Until that is established, we're trying to debate a possibly non-existing or false concept. We might as well debate on the color of a unicorn's horn.

Zz.