Slashdot Mirror


Math Textbooks a Textbook Example of Bad Textbooks

theodp writes "Over at Salon, Annie Keeghan does an Upton Sinclair number on the math textbook industry. In recent years, Keeghan explains, math has become the subject du jour due to government initiatives and efforts to raise the rankings of lagging U.S. students. But with state and local budgets constrained, math textbook publishers competing for fewer available dollars are rushing their products to market before their competitors, resulting in product that in many instances is inherently, tragically flawed. Keeghan writes: 'There may be a reason you can't figure out some of those math problems in your son or daughter's math text and it might have nothing at all to do with you. That math homework you're trying to help your child muddle through might include problems with no possible solution. It could be that key information or steps are missing, that the problem involves a concept your child hasn't yet been introduced to, or that the math problem is structurally unsound for a host of other reasons.' The comments on Keeghan's article are also an eye-opener — here's a sample: 'Sales and marketing budgets are astronomical because the expenses pay off more than investments in product. Sadly, most teachers are not curriculum experts and are swayed by the surface pitches. Teachers make the decisions, but are not the users (students) nor are they spending their own money. As a result, products that make their lives easier and that come with free meals and gifts are the most successful.' So, can open source or competitions build better math textbooks?"

16 of 446 comments (clear)

  1. It's not just the textbooks by Vanders · · Score: 5, Informative

    It could be that key information or steps are missing

    Entire exams have been ruined by incorrect questions. Apparently, reading and writing is not a hard requirement for being a mathematician.

    1. Re:It's not just the textbooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Lectures are extremely inefficient. Just use the same textbooks as 30+ years ago. Pre-university mathematics hasn't changed that much.

      The correct solution would be, of course, to adopt a more left-wing education model. Soviet mathematics education was excellent, because (i) the USSR was interested in academic success as a vehicle to national technological advancement; (ii) it was not tainted by privatised publishers and exam providers desiring quantity over quality. China is following a not entirely dissimilar model, and they're doing kinda OK. Even France, keeping firm the foundations of its Polytechnique model, laughs in the face of America with the quality of its mathematics curriculum.

      Capitalism simply does not deliver good education. There is no profit in a swathe of well-educated people, only the minimum needed to keep remaining consumers in line.

    2. Re:It's not just the textbooks by arpad1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reason to keep reinventing the wheel is because reinventing the wheel costs lots of money.

      The monopolistic nature of the public education system means that customer demands - the parents - can be ignored. So, we've got a textbook industry that can ignore cost and can ignore efficacy, since their customer is the school district, but can't ignore political fads.

      If you want textbooks to get relentlessly better and relentlessly cheaper then the people who are urgently concerned about the safety and effective education of the kids - parents - have to assume direct control over education.

      That's in the process of happening with the spread of charter schools, vouchers, parental trigger and tax credits but we're only just now getting to the point that those changes are starting to impact education. But another two to three years should see the monopolistic complacency of the public education system shattered as the nature of public education, and the costs of that nature, are more widely understood as they stand in contrast to the alternatives.

      --
      Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    3. Re:It's not just the textbooks by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Just use the same textbooks as 30+ years ago. Pre-university mathematics hasn't changed that much.

      This is really where the open source model should be shining. If you're buying books to 100,000 students, then really you should be buying the copyright, not paying through the nose for each copy. As an author, I'd happily take a $30K up-front payment to write a textbook and hand over the complete writes to the country's education system. Then can then do a big print run initially, and a smaller run each year to replace ones that wear out. If they need to make corrections, they can print errata pages for the existing copies and just fix them in the new edition so when the old ones wear out they're replaced with ones with the fixes. And, of course, since they own the copyright they can give students PDF versions to keep.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:It's not just the textbooks by MadShark · · Score: 5, Informative

      Uggg. I had several teachers in college that wrote their own "textbooks" for their classes(electrical engineering). They were extraordinarily smart individuals, but their writing sucked. They were desperately in need of a technical writer and an editor. The ones that didn't completely suck were not any better than the normal books I had for my other classes.

    5. Re:It's not just the textbooks by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The textbook providers are capitalist enterprises. The article correctly points out that their incentives are to do whatever it takes to sell books, not to provide the best possible books.

      The fact that this even affects MATH texts indicates how pervasive and corrupting the process is. Unlike history and science, there is no need for the content to change from decade to decade. We could have optimized math texts long ago.

    6. Re:It's not just the textbooks by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Mod up!

      I substitute taught a few years ago and objectives and curriculum just for a single day is mindboggling. A 1st grade classroom as an example needs to go through 4 objectives per subject 4 times a day. That is 16 lessons in just 6.5 hours! The books need to be in synch with this and explains why you can't use a book from 30 years ago even if the mathmatics are the same.

      No Child Left Behind puts huge requirements. 30 years ago 1st graders were being taught to count to 50, the ABCS and how to put together simple wordss and after that children spent 2 hours a day painting, playing, and cutting shapes out of construction paper.

      Today they are being taught multiplication, juggling (yes it is in some state standards), health, vowel rules with moderate words, etc. It is a pain in the butt and hard on the kids and teachers, but we keep whinning on how American kids are behind the rest of the world so No Child Left Behind is enforcing this. Now just imagine if a state changes the standards again?? Pfft time to through out those 2 million dollars worth of text books and start again!

    7. Re:It's not just the textbooks by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why would they bother? My first book is used by two university courses that I know of, and the income from that would not even be close to making it worth writing the book. Even if you make everyone in a class of 100 buy the book every year, the author's royalty is going to be pretty small. You'd be lucky to make $1,000/year as a result. Given the time required to write the book, this seems like a pretty bad idea.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  2. This applies to ALL textbooks by msobkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This issue is found with all textbooks, and has always been a problem. Even in the 70s and 80s, pretty much every textbook I used in high school and university had mistakes, omissions, and unsolvable chapter-problems.

    The difficulty with learning maths and sciences stems from the fact that they tend to deal with abstract concepts, procedures, and algorithms for performing mathematical calculations. In the age of calculators and instant-gratification web searches, not only aren't students willing to put in the time to learn "how" to do something, they aren't even interested in learning "why" they should do something.

    Instead, they point to their computers and the web as being able to do the work for them, and question the sanity of learning "the old way" of doing things. If the only purpose of an education was to prepare people for the workforce, I'd agree with them -- but the point of an education is to learn how to learn, how to interpret, and how to understand material. An education isn't about the facts taught, but about the learning process that prepares you for a lifetime of learning as you deal with new technologies, products, and ideas during your time on this planet.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:This applies to ALL textbooks by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The solution is simple: use PDFs of public domain textbooks. If you like, order a cheap bound copy of the PDF to be made.

      Basic math hasn't changed much in a century, and there are numerous old textbooks out there that are generally proofread better than modern textbooks. I have found the problems are often better structured and designed as well.

      Sure, there are minor changes in terminology, which any good teacher can address. But we should do this even just to save the backs of young kids -- those old textbooks are small, short, and therefore light to carry, rather than a 700-page glossy book that weighs 10 pounds (why the heck do we need this for math textbooks?).

      When I was in junior high and high school, I picked up a lot of such old textbooks at used book sales for nothing. I think I learned more from them than I did from my actual math classes...

    2. Re:This applies to ALL textbooks by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As a schoolchild, I went through the French system, and people complained that the textbooks changed too often. Which was a legitimate concern, but since the programme and standard were set system-wide, each iteration was, I thought, OK. Basically, it laid out the structure of the year, and gave supplementary material. Oh, and the maths books also had some exercise sets.

      But that was an exception. And the proportion of exercises was small.

      Likewise at university, I got textbooks, which were in the vast majority European in origin. And they were thin, densely packed with equations (or not so thin in the case of fluid mechanics and thermodynamics). And they contained almost no examples or exercises. They were designed as reference books.

      But I also got a couple American textbook. Which were not badly written or wrong. But which were pieces of shit. Because the were huge, and contained stupid amounts of examples and exercises, instead of well-structured matter. On my shelf, I still have -- and consult -- the European ones, the American textbooks: dunno where I put them.

      The author of TFA complains that the books are terribly written an badly copyedited. Sure, they might be. But even if they weren't, they would still be crap. This is because on this continent, people seem not to have understood the most important aspect of knowledge: its structure. The goal should never be that the student can do lots of exercises quickly. It should be that they understand the structure and logic of the subject -- and that, they can do the exercises, sure, but also understand how this subject relates to all the others. And each subject well understood helps in all the others.

      And how knowledge, in general, forms a great overarching structure. Now of course, if you did that, you would never get engineer-creationists: because they would deeply understand that you cannot, in fact, compartmentalise knowledge.

      This is not a "American education is crap" post. it is rather a "American education would in fact be very good" if you guys simply made the effort of respecting theory and structure more.

  3. Rushing?! For What?! by adamchou · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its not like Math changes every year. The text book industry and publishers are just ripping students off every year. If they would just publish one edition of their text books, we wouldn't have this problem.

    1. Re:Rushing?! For What?! by Gabrill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      +1.

      There is absolutely no need for the textbooks to be revisioned as often as they are. Each year students are forced to purchase a new presentation of the same subject and material that has been available and defined for decades. I mean really, is there any NEW Calculus 101 research being done within the last 3 decades? Publishers ensure a new purchase every year by revisioning their books with no value updates. I think it amounts to industry abuse.

      The problem is made worse by the rapid evolution of supporting software, hardware, and the operating systems they run on. I can't wait until our computer tools mature enough to be as least as stable, reliable, and long-lived to last through a four-year degree course without putting the user at a disadvantage near the end of the degree.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
  4. Obligatory Feynman Writing On Textbooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Feynman wrote about the problems with textbooks and textbook selection in the 60s. Sadly, I don't think much has changed. It might have gotten worse. I do hope that open source textbooks and book readers might help, eventually, if we can prevent the systems from perpetuating textbooks as revenue generation first and teaching aids second.

  5. This is a definitely a real problem, but... by kentsta · · Score: 5, Informative

    ....as a former math teacher, I can assure you that teachers rarely get to make the purchasing decisions regarding textbooks. Teachers, even most rookies, can tell when a textbook is bad, but have to use what they are given for the most part. They are free to supplement the curriculum with their own created content, but of course they are expected to mostly teach the state standards with the given textbooks.

  6. How about no textbook at all? by portforward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My son's elementary school uses "Math Investigations" which is part of that "new math". You know, the type that believes that it isn't necessary to learn multiplication tables, or that your really only need to learn a few fractions: 1/2 1/3 1/4 and that is it. Oh yeah, and you shouldn't "stack" numbers while adding. He doesn't have a text book. He only brings home photocopied worksheets.

    I complained to the teacher. They referred me to the principal who referred me to the district's elementary math education supervisor. Long story short, when schools say they want parents involved, they are lying. That is the last thing that they want. They want you to chaperone field trips. They want you to help fund raise. But when you want to actually input on the fundamentals of education, they shut you out. Even though you might have been a physics major and tutor, and brought peer reviewed research sponsored by the Department of Education pointing out that their particular math curricula has students score lower on standardized tests they imply that you don't know what you are talking about.