Any ideas as to why schools only like to use text books to teach material?, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 11-6-2008 @ 05:51 PM by Frankidealist35

I know that schools will give you extra reading to do and they will tell you to read certain assignments but most classes from most schools around the nation and even in colleges will give you text-books to read. Why do they think this is the most effective method of teaching a lot of material? It bores a lot of students like myself out of their mind, and, it kills interest of the subject that is being learned within the students taking the class. There is obviously a better way that students could learn, not, from text-books, but, why are schools oppressing this other way of learning? I am sure that school's administrative offices are aware that many students dislike text-books. So why do they still teach this way?

reply posted on 11-6-2008 @ 05:59 PM by ZeroKnowledge

How else can you learn a lot of material in acceptable time? Films cost money ,can contain much fewer info and not everyone will like them also. Web learning is only in diapers , it demands new approaches ,lot of money and certain personal available. And if a lot of info is still needed to be memorized, even the most efficiently designed website is going to be boring in the end. It is not about fun after all but about gaining knowledge. If you think that you do not need it then nothing could make it fun.

reply posted on 11-6-2008 @ 06:00 PM by thegdfather

Thats one of the main reasons as why I hate college. Seriously every class is a two hour lecture only to be followed by hours of reading and a long page paper every few weeks. I don't mind writing in fact I prefer it, but not all students learn like this.

On top of that the curriculum to get your degrees now is absurd. Im stuck taking archealogical classes just to fill a humanties credit when im a film major! Why would I have any interest in learning how to dig up bones? How does that help me for my desired career?

reply posted on 11-6-2008 @ 06:02 PM by uknow_me72

reply to post by Frankidealist35

If a country can indoctrinate the children at a very young age before the age of 7, they can capture their minds and solidify how they will think about certain issues. This brainwashing process begins in pre-school. Public education, which was set up as a result of a man named Horace Mann, who came back from Prussia in the 1800's. He observed the workings of their socialist education system, and brought the idea back to the US, and under the guise of “providing” an education for all, for the benefit of all, the public institutions were set up in this country. The mass education system as a whole is a large tool for the ruling elite to immerse public students in an environment, which is separate from the parents and which promotes un-Godly behavior and principles. For approximately 25-30 hours per week, for 12 years minimum children are inundated with information that has a bias perspective in order to get them to agree with the elitist viewpoints which will destroy our society and then our world. When you run the math on this, the schools have your children for 12,960 hours from kindergarten through 12th grade. That’s a lot of time to mold a person’s way of thinking, which affects them for life. This doesn’t include a higher education at a university, where the indoctrination is reinforced, by secular professors.
The NEA - National Teacher Association, ensures the security of their positions, by ensuring that no change is made to the public education system which would jeopardize their jobs. They make sure that the government keeps funding public education. This group is also a tool for the promotion of both socialist and communist ideals, which are a tool of the ruling elitist who want to take the minds of people at the earliest age possible. The elitist considers these children, easy recruits to his team.

__________

The books that they use only teach what they want them to know. They also use this as proof that what they say is correct because many schools teach the same thing. Everyone get's on the page they want them on. So everyone believes the same thing.

So who's to say that they are not just making most of this stuff up?

You wouldn't think so because you went through the system they designed also, So there for you think the way they want you to.

Perfect caditates to join their team? Do you know your role?

reply posted on 11-6-2008 @ 06:03 PM by MurderCityDevil

reply to post by Frankidealist35

are you serious?

i can tell you are not an avid reader, maybe an avid internetter

reading and studying opens and teaches your mind in so many ways, esp in the sense of imagination and thinking

i enjoy reading much more than movies or shows sometimes cause my imagination takes over and i try to make it like im actually in the book right there instead of sitting watching somone act

reply posted on 11-6-2008 @ 06:08 PM by dr_strangecraft

Textbooks are a lot cheaper than having each student build up a personal library. For instance, instead of making each student purchase an entire copy of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, you just select three passages and put them in a chapter of a textbook on English literature. It's a lot faster and cheaper.

The limitation is, the students only learn the specific points the textbook makes. This homogenizes the education process, with all students in a state learning three truths about Chaucer, but nothing more.

One alternative is the "Old School" way of learning, called the Scholastic or Socratic method. In this style, the teacher and students read through two texts in opposition, and debate the merits of each line by line. The students "learn by asking questions," and instead of memorizing facts about the topic, they may reach original conclusions or discover new insights the teacher (and authors!) hadn't planned.

Wikipedia: Scholastic method.

The trouble is, the teacher must prepare and master the material thoroughly, and teach logic in addition to the course material. It's also impossible to test the students using a multiple choice quiz that has been mass-produced by the government. Different students will learn different things, and the best students may come to know more than the teacher!

In the USA, the scholastic method is generally used in private schools and graduate school, where standardized testing (and learning) is not mandated. This is why those institutions produce superior students, in my opinion.

.

reply posted on 11-6-2008 @ 06:19 PM by Frankidealist35

reply to post by MurderCityDevil

I actually do like reading a lot. I just happen to find a lot of text-books boring. Text-books seem to not interest me. There's just something about the writing style of most text-books that bore me. Perhaps it's the way they are written. They are written so professors can teach a lot in a little time but I think that text-books should not need to be used. I think that smaller books written by actual authors that if written well can teach you a lot more than actual text-books.

Many people have different learning styles. I just don't learn well from text-books. When I want to learn something I don't look at a text-book I borrow a book from my local library. I actually enjoy reading books that I am interested in, but, even if I read a text-book about some topic I am interested in like history, I get bored. There are better tools of learning. Internet learning should be practiced more. Professors could put the material they want students to learn online in the form of e-books. They could also give students books on tape of the curriculum of which the class offers.

I'm not trying to give anyone the impression that I hate text books I just think there could be better ways that teachers could teach information to a class. It's just that I think that text-book teachers aren't exactly that helpful and that students should be given better services, and that colleges should have online services for classes, where students could get notes for the class. But I just think that text books shouldn't be the only way of teaching a class. It's a great way we could learn, but, just couldn't teachers just do better at explaining what's in the text book? Some of what is in a text book is hard to understand and there are some things we read in text books that teachers don't even go over. So that is really my point. That text books need better explanations.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by Frankidealist35]

reply posted on 12-6-2008 @ 06:04 PM by zeitaro

I think schools use textbooks because its so simple. I believe most textbook sets come with a lesson plan so, a teacher just has to follow the lesson plan given to them. The teacher doesn't really have to do alot except grade the worksheets and keep the class in line.
Textbooks don't really help at all. They are extraordinarily uninteresting but they burn great

I'm sure everyone loses interest in a short while but its mainly the teachers job to supplement what the textbook teaches with their personality an flair and to keep them somewhat interested in what they are learning.
I like the Socratic circle method. We have done a couple in my Literature class and i think it allows you to express yourself better, get different perspectives on the works being discussed, and gets many people involved rather than a couple people raising their hands and only one getting picked to announce the answer. Plus if all schools taught with the Socratic Circle method then maybe exams would be so annoying.

reply posted on 14-6-2008 @ 12:19 AM by doctormcauley

The main reason you have text books is for the simple fact that you cannot ALL get the same book from the library - you outnumber it. So the content is condensed categorized and printed in mass quantities for distribution to the Useless Eaters

Textbooks also indoctrinate a particular Paradigm into to child.

They hold less useful Knowledge with each new printing.

We can't have you reading Subversive material, now can we?

reply posted on 14-6-2008 @ 12:39 AM by theRiverGoddess

Originally posted by thegdfather

On top of that the curriculum to get your degrees now is absurd. Im stuck taking archealogical classes just to fill a humanties credit when im a film major! Why would I have any interest in learning how to dig up bones? How does that help me for my desired career?

Let me see............MAYBE you would see how much people LIKE the Indianna Jones movies as well as HOW MUCH $$$$ those movies made, and you could use some of your KNOWLEDGE to bring a new charactor for this jonr'e to the screen?
MAYBE you will decide that doing discovery channel type documentaries is MORE fulfilling to your soul and you use your knowledge in that direction?

I come from a film background......spent near 25 years in that business.
It is a heartless and soulless business and I PRAY to the powers that created us that the newer generation of filmakers will bring MORE TO THE TABLE than greed and the empty desire for fame. *snap*

[edit on 14-6-2008 by theRiverGoddess]

reply posted on 14-6-2008 @ 01:01 AM by fomalhaut

Textbooks allow some measure of consistency across the different school districts. If a child moves from one district to another, there is good chance that he will be learning the same concepts he was in his old school district. Also, there are degrees in curriculum design. Designing curriculum appropriate to the students' age level is a skill and shouldn't be left up to each individual teacher.

reply posted on 14-6-2008 @ 11:04 AM by dr_strangecraft

Originally posted by thegdfather
On top of that the curriculum to get your degrees now is absurd. Im stuck taking archealogical classes just to fill a humanties credit when im a film major! Why would I have any interest in learning how to dig up bones? How does that help me for my desired career?

Most degree programs will waive some of those frankly outdated liberal arts requirements. You might ask your dean or department head whether your school offers the "Philistine track" that was pioneered at UCLA.

Failing that, look in the front of the course catalog. There's usually an introduction that addresses the issue.

(edit italics)

[edit on 14-6-2008 by dr_strangecraft]

reply posted on 18-6-2008 @ 08:53 AM by Anonymous ATS

reply to post by uknow_me72

I am a public school teacher and think your idea about a conspiracy regarding public schools is wrong. We do not have absolute control over kids. We are very fortunate if we can get through a day without breaking up a fight. If we call a parent about a problem with a student, frequently we are told we are wrong, lying or worse; that we are racists . If there were a government plan to brainwash children to take their place in society and fulfill a drone's existence, then the plan is a failure. We use textbooks (I use mine rarely-teach Science, mostly use labs to teach concepts) to teach quickly because we are pressured to 'get through the material' at an amazing rate. We have to finish our coursework in March so we can spend two months preparing for the TAKS test here in Texas. Teachers are caring, dedicated people (for the most part) who just want to be left alone to teach their children the information they need to survive in this challenging world. Look somewhere else for your conspiracies. A Middle School Science Teacher.

Pages: ^^TOP^^