| |

|
Advocate Online
Speaking Out
On Choosing Textbooks
This article is inspired by an exchange of ideas in the Advocate last year (February 2007 Dialogue) on whether the use of departmentally chosen textbooks limits the academic freedom of faculty.
Utilitarianism—i.e. the maximum benefit to society for the greatest number of people—is a general principle traditionally used to legitimize the degree of allowable freedom in society.
Applying this principle as a standard for academic freedom, it would be difficult to legitimize usurping the traditional right of faculty members to choose their own teaching materials.
In addition to other considerations, those advocating taking this right away from faculty fail to consider the effects recent technological advancement and departmental peculiarities have on the choice of teaching materials.
In an age of technological innovation,
for example, the concept of “textbooks” is becoming anachronistic in some disciplines. A number of professors no longer even require textbooks for their courses. Credible electronic sources and competing ideas have become attractive alternatives. In many cases, a departmentally chosen textbook is redundant.
The debate should also consider interdisciplinary differences. Why should procedures for choosing textbooks be the same for English, mathematics, economics, and sociology, when there are substantive differences in the disciplines? For example, while the choice of an English text might make little or no difference if the goal is simply understanding, and writing English, this is not true for economics, where multiple controversies and theories abound.
One rationalization for denying the freedom of faculty to choose a text assumes that the teacher must not be trusted because of a potential disposition to be aberrant and the use of a departmentally chosen textbook will guarantee a common standard.
Course outlines and evaluations can now allay such fears. The outlines are a contract between teachers and students, and evaluations can monitor the teacher’s commitment to stay on task. In effect, outlines and evaluations provide a verifiable measure of expectations and standards.
Finally, the selection process itself is flawed. Many departments are made up of faculty members with different areas of specialization. There is no rational, general principle that can justify the substitution of this group knowledge for the specialized knowledge of the individual scholar.
Christopher E.S. Warburton, an economist and author, teaches economics and white collar crime at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. His research interests include international law and economics, poverty, and transitional justice.
|
 |
 |
| |
| 
I'd like to say!
I would like to congratulate you on “Getting Students to Do the
Readings,” December, Thriving in Academe.
As a reading and English educator, I am always struggling with this issue. I attempt to address it in my own classes by a variety of methods, and I'm sought out by other faculty members for advice on how to get their students to do assigned readings.
For my half-sabbatical during the spring, 2008 semester, I will be conducting interviews of content area instructors here at Bristol Community College about the reading they assign, and methods they use to “get” the students to read. I will be sure to bring your reflections along with me to the interviews—just in case they did not read this issue!
—Linda Mulready
Bristol Community College (Mass.)
Congratulations to Linda Nilson (December, Thriving in Academe). The articles on how to get students to do their readings were wonderful. I look forward to trying to apply them in my math classes.
I’m sure there’s some way to use the principles to get the students to read the few pages we assign each day. (Math is very condensed; a few pages is like 20-30 pages of humanities reading.) Many students need help navigating the dense information.
—Thomas Zaslavsky
Binghamton University(SUNY)
Share
your opinion
Write to the editor at:
Clehane@nea.org
|
|
|
 |
|
|