I have used several different intro. textbooks and loved them. I'm stumped trying to recall pictures or illustrations that were wrong. I can remember some typos, even a couple of things I wished authors had included, but no real goofs.
Anytime I find a textbook doesn't fit the type of class I'm teaching (maybe too difficult or too easy), then I switch. There are plenty to choose from. My students usually report that they love their texts. Intro books particularly are now very "sexy" (read: hip and catchy, not sex-oriented) - a far cry from the crusty old text I learned from in 1965. (I still have it. What a boring old thing it is.) Yes, I've probably been teaching long enough that I could get by without a textbook for the intro. classroom, but I don't think I could be comprehensive enough that my students would be satisfied without a textbook. And while there are many, many important classics it would be nice to have our students read and spend their $75 on, I still vote for the overall coverage an intro. text gives. There's no way we could have our students read enough outside articles to equal the range of topics we're expected to cover in intro. Beth Benoit University System of New Hampshire ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kenneth M. Steele" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 12:52 PM Subject: Re: text art [and the general problem] > > I agree with Mark that it is the general question of text art > and illustration that should be examined. My impression from > casual conversations with authors of introductory textbooks is > that they have little control over the illustrations that > appear. These items are the products of internal staffs of the > publishing companies. Most of these illustrations are > irrelevant and many are plain wrong. Those of us who teach > classical conditioning know how awful are the explanatory > diagrams that are found in most intro textbooks, and, regularly, > I have graduate students do a critique of one of these diagrams > as an answer on their proseminar exam. [Many of our grad > students will teach an intro course at some time in the future, > and I don't want them showing this garbage uncritically.] > > Our field is being presented in textbooks by graduates of fine > arts programs who do not know psychology. > > One solution is to abandon the adoption of these introductory > textbook monstrosities for our classes. Most of us have a good > collection of overheads, digital overheads, background and > current readings, and other material. > > How closely do TIPsters follow the material in their > introductory textbook which is in use at this moment? If some > fairy [a good or bad fairy, depending on your druthers] were to > make your current intro psych textbook disappear, how much > impact would this have on your course? How difficult would it be > to continue with your course? I think of how many more > interesting books students could buy to read with the $75 they > saved from buying an intro textbook. > > Ken > > ---------------------- > Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Dept. of Psychology > Appalachian State University > Boone, NC 28608 > USA --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
