In this article, Swetz gives a brief history of math
textbooks. He contrasts those that are mostly a series of problems (to be
accompanied with oral instruction by a teacher) and those that contain
instruction. He also discusses how authors used diagrams and manipulatives to accompany
texts, and what these might mean about how the authors hoped their texts might
be understood.
In my relatively short teaching career, I have already
observed two curriculum changes (one in Ontario and one in BC). As a result of
this (and of changing schools multiple times in Vancouver,) I have been involved
with many different department meetings selecting new textbooks (or workbooks)
within the financial constraints of our current educational system. Most of the
newer texts tend to spend most of their pages constructing knowledge with detailed
explanations and investigative questions. This often comes at the cost of
practice questions, and I find myself generally sending students home with
worksheets to practice concepts.
Certainly, the construction of knowledge featured in these
books is important, but students still need practice to master a concept. In
addition, these textbooks don’t take into account that few students read them.
I find students are more likely to follow links I provide (such as
purplemath.com) to get an explanation for a topic they find challenging than
looking a concept up in their textbook. I have always felt that my job is to help
students construct knowledge and give clear explanation of topics – All I hope
for from a textbook is interesting and challenging practice questions, which
are rarely featured in newer ministry approved textbooks.
I think it is so interesting that the author mention how closely tied our own pedagogic methods are to many historically important methods. That we teach as a series of problems that gradually expand upon themselves is reflective of how mathematics has been taught historically. I often find myself teaching my small classes in the Socratic method, using my classroom to provoke conversation and discussion surrounding the uncovering of a concept. I think that students relish the opportunity to be a part of the story and take part in what they are learning, instead of simply being told. This approach obviously stems from a historically important method, though I don't think this is an entirely a reasonable approach for larger class sizes. I wonder how a teacher might employ a similar method for classes of thirty students
ReplyDeleteI also have the same issue with my students regarding textbooks. My students rarely go through the examples provided in the textbook even when an assigned question refers to a particular method in the textbook example for solving the question. My students also would much rather look up Youtube clips posted by other math teachers for questions they struggle with than to read through the textbook. As a result, I posted links on my website for suggested Youtube channels and websites for math concepts. Students like the interaction provided by video clips when learning math concepts where it is very difficult to achieve that effect with an inanimate object like a book. However, I find students very willing to use workbooks where they are able to write in it. Interestingly, they are also more open to look at examples provided in a workbook then a textbook. I wonder if the interaction aspect has anything to do with it. I also wonder since we are moving towards digital files where authors could make interactive digital textbooks, would students be more interested in using an interactive digital textbook? With all the technology upgrading in various schools in BC, digitized textbooks is one of the items I am most interested in seeing happening!
ReplyDelete