Chapter VI
Conclusion
Up to the 1970s, the field was dominated by a few traditions
(history book revision and historical content analyses) and by
individual and composite works published at long intervals
(NSSE Yearbook 1931, Cronbach 1955, Dance 1960, Elson
1964, Schüddekopf 1966, Andolf 1972). Production
subsequently increased steadily, and by the 1980s the
literature included articles, essays and research reports
containing analyses of the development, production, use and
content of textbooks. The situation as of 1993 is that textbook
research has been formalized in some countries (e.g., Austria,
Germany, Japan and Sweden), where separate institutes have
been established for textbook research. In other countries,
certain universities conduct textbook research. National and
international networks are also under development (e.g.,
AERA-SIG in the USA, an international UNESCO-
Braunschweig network, PARADIGM in the UK, and PEXU
in the Nordic countries).
The results thus far may be summed up as follows:
Little research has been done on the writing, development
and distribution of textbooks. Most of the literature consists
of articles criticizing either the approval systems or the role
of the publisher (chapter V).
Book use has received slightly more attention, but so far
the primary focus has been on textbook analyses based on
readability theories rather than on classroom surveys. The
results are conclusive on several points: Textbooks have been
and continue to be the most widely-used teaching aid.
Although it is hard to pinpoint exactly how textbooks are
used in the classroom, it is clear that practices vary
considerably. The way in which pupils read and use textbooks
has not yet been studied adequately, but existing reports tell
of poor accessibility and questionable effectiveness (chapter
IV).
Content analyses have dominated textbook research. They
have primarily been ideological in nature, aimed at improving
textbooks' faculty for instilling tolerance and international
understanding. Recent research in the fields of philosophy,
education and linguistics has helped broaden the general field
of vision. Today research looks not only at the selection and
distribution of material in textbooks, it also tries to examine
their content in light of their form and use. Results deriving
from this research should indicate that it is time to reconsider
several features of the textbook genre, whose textual form
has remained largely unchanged for the past few decades
(chapters II and III).
Researchers have employed a wide variety of different
methods, ranging from impressionistic-polemical analyses to
precise, mathematical-statistical surveys. In the studies
emphasizing scientific methods, researchers have encountered
one or more of the following problems: How to distinguish
between development, use and content; how, in view of the
interdisciplinary nature of the textbook, to establish criteria
for the division of emphasis between subject content,
pedagogy, didactics and literature; how to deal with the
constraints ensuing from traditional limitations and
commitment to methods used in the social sciences; how to
distinguish between the descriptive and the normative in
one's own publication/report. Considering the wide variety of
methods used, it appears we have learned the most from the
studies that have given the most meticulous explanation of
their intentions in relation to the categorization of their
material.
Many studies have lacked an overall perspective. In
addition, ambiguous attitudes toward the production and use
of textbooks are found in publishing houses and schools. Such
ambiguity may be considered both a cause and an effect of
the fact that the total research-book development-teaching
cycle has not previously been analyzed as a potential area for
improving not only the books, but also the school. Such work
is contingent upon maintaining an overall perspective over
the part textbooks play both in school and in society. This
issue is discussed under the heading A View of Textbooks. In
addition, I argue for more attention to be paid to the textbook
as a literary genre (The Interpretability of Textbooks).
Finally, certain methodological principles must be adjusted to
coincide with an overall perspective. They are discussed
under A View of Approaches and illustrated in A View of
Research Tasks.
A textbook is neither just subject content, nor pedagogy, nor
literature, nor information, nor morals nor politics. It is the
freebooter of public information, operating in the gray zone
between community and home, science and propaganda,
special subject and general education, adult and child.
In recent decades, certain aspects of social development
have heightened the significance of this multi-faceted role.
The advent of electronic communications has made linguistic
ability a key concept in education, working life and life in
general. Expertise is often largely a question of being
conversant with the LSP (language for special purposes) of a
particular field. The vocabularies used in most of the school's
theoretical and practical subjects may be considered variants
of the mother-tongue. Language mastery has become essential
in view of our daily contact with printed and electronic texts.
In addition, the media revolution is steadily raising the
minimum level of linguistic insight required of everyone who
wants to gain understanding and, with understanding, the
self-confidence and desire to take an active part in the
community.
At the same time, the disjointed, entertainment-oriented
waves of information flooding the leisure-time market may
jeopardize children's self-images and perception of the world
instead of manifesting coherence and stimulating their will to
live. School is the only place where children still gather
together under one roof to read and analyze texts of any
length. In that sense, school may be viewed as the last
guarantee of equal development opportunities. Yet this is true
only to the extent that the school uses texts that are physically
and linguistically accessible enough to be read, understood
and used by the majority of pupils. Failure on this point will
create marked social divisions between an articulate, active
minority and a linguistically impoverished, passive majority.
A basic tenet of the modern school system is that teaching
should be centered on the local environment and the
individual. Shared national characteristics also become more
highly appreciated during a time marked by rapid
internationalization. At the same time, pressure on and from
other nations is something of value. The old questions from
classic history book revision re-assert themselves with
renewed relevance: How should textbooks depict the home,
the region, the nation and the world?
New and complex demands on teachers have reinforced the
position of the textbook. During times marked by teaching
staff uncertainty and great mobility among families, this
literature, more than any other element of knowledge
dissemination, comprises the very essence of the contract
between children and society.
The problem facing us today is as follows: On the one hand
the standards for general qualifications are being raised,
while on the other the dynamics at work in today's society are
impeding the development of precisely the same
qualifications. The result is a paradox in respect of all our
ideas about education (Jensen 1991, p. 5). We strive for
effectiveness and expertise, but we cannot press requirements
for qualifications any further in a theoretical direction unless
the evolutionary pattern is holistic and general. Without a
broad base, the whole system will break down; people won't
want to take part if they don't recognize the system's
relevance. Thus the challenge facing those who make
textbooks is to write books that guarantee academic
progression and general education. This presupposes processes
of a different nature from those discussed in the chapter of
this book called The Development of Textbooks. We must
build new textbook experiences that are open to an infinite
variety of perspectives. We must replace our pensive perusing
with active processing. The textbooks themselves must pave
the way for other activities which are more open and less
predictable - activities which, paradoxically, are dependent
on textbooks for development. This might mean they would
have to incorporate some sort of "fifth column" texts that
contravene their own traditions. Perhaps we can envision a
genre that discusses a subject while teaching it to children
and young people; a genre open to - even demanding -
interpretation and independent study.
The ideal textbook might therefore be summed up as
follows:
- In every subject, it would use ordinary language and
language for special purposes in a way that would inspire
in the majority of pupils the desire to read and use such
language;
- In every subject, it would describe individuals, nature and
society in a way that would give the majority of pupils
insight into and interest in connections which many would
otherwise find hard to discover on their own, outside the
school environment.
The Interpretability
of Textbooks
Several investigations have drawn attention to the decline in
reading motivation that takes place during the transition from
primary to lower secondary level (Beverton 1986, Perera
1986, Sosniak-Perlman 1990, de Castell 1990). Concurrent
with this transition, there is a change in the kind of reading
material pupils are given. Expository prose gains a strong
position, reducing pupils' exposure to fiction and other more
literary texts. At the same time, increasing emphasis is
nevertheless placed on literary comprehension and analysis,
areas in which most language teachers (mother-tongue and
foreign) have received training. It would be difficult,
however, to point to any corresponding interpretation or
analysis of all the new documentary literature which views
the material as a literary product expressive of a mode of
thought. This situation may be attributed to factors related to
1) history, 2) the philosophy of science, 3) pedagogy and 4)
production.
1. Historically speaking, the ancient Greeks were the
fathers of Western science and technology, which are based
on logical analyses of nature and society. An exacting, sharp
language based on mathematics demands registration,
definition and systematization. Children learn in school that
life can be managed by ordering it into conceptual systems.
A logical analysis of the classifiable phenomena which
comprise reality seems to be inherent in the nature of man;
we are pre-programmed, so to speak. However, language,
including ordinary prose, is studded with images and symbols.
Pupils are also expected to deal with these phenomena in
school. But this rather more diffuse, creative way of writing
and thinking is supposed to be taught them through fine
literature and aesthetic subjects. We tend to overlook the fact
that the ostensibly strict scientific tradition is replete with
images and symbols, with highly interpretable "paradigms".
This is true of textbooks as well. In fact, many textbook titles
suggest that the books present comprehensive coverage of a
subject, which must perforce entail a philosophy of the
subject, life or the world (From Word to Statement, Biology,
Our Own Language, Our Society). Nonetheless, many people
still view ordinary textbook prose as being identical with
indisputable fact, i.e., they are unable to separate the veracity
of the language from the veracity of the facts described by
the language (see page 126).
2. With regard to the philosophy of science, in the non-
aesthetic disciplines, the ideal of objectivity has traditionally
dominated not only research institutions, but also the school
(see page 134). This means that textbooks have - errouneously
- been viewed as objective conveyors of fact. Fiction, on the
other hand, has been preeminent as the interpreter of the
world, so it has been considered natural to view fiction as a
challenge on which one must take a position. (I've chosen to
disregard the tradition that prevailed in primary schools far
into the twentieth century, involving the rote memorization
of moralistic fiction (see page 173).)
3. This, in turn, has an impact on education. Investigations
concerning use clearly indicate that textbooks are
predominantly used as reference books and as study guides to
prepare for examinations. Although not formally or officially
stated anywhere, in practice, the general attitude is that
textbooks exist in order to be regurgitated on command (see
page 232).
4. Today, textbooks are massproduced and not unique
(Johnsen 1989, Trotzig 1989, Woodward 1990). Very few
comparative studies show any significant differences in
methods or general approaches among competing books for
the same level. In any event, the widespread belief that the
books are alike will not promote any initiative to treat the
school's documentary literature as something requiring
interpretation (see page 201).
It is now time to consider the question of textbooks as
interpretable expressions from all angles. First of all, it
is
related to the development of general scientific theory in the
humanities (see Gordon, Kjørup and Lunden, page 343).
Second, it is ascribable to the advent of new scientific
concepts and modes of thought in the field of literature. Four
key terms in this context are: analyses of language usage, the
question of genre, the reader-book relationship and the
relationship between the school's objectives and educational
texts in light of linguistic theory.
In many countries analyses of language usage now
supplement traditional literary analyses. In Norway, for
example, literary analyses of prose texts in school were
unheard of before the mid-1970s, when they enjoyed a
breakthrough in the subject of Norwegian. This general trend
was to some extent related to political currents in the wake of
the 1968 movement, gaining ground as it became accepted
that "language is power"; i.e., it was acknowledged that so-
called non-fiction literature could be biased and subjective.
It would be unnatural if such a realization did not have
repercussions on one of the most common varieties of non-
fiction literature besides newspapers, namely the textbook.
The question of genre is also partially a result of the
recognition of non-fiction prose as interpretive, and
therefore interpretable. Parallel to process-oriented
composition training, which experienced a definitive
breakthrough in the USA in the early 1980s and has now
become popular in Europe as well, pupils have become more
conscious of genre. This has caused more attention to be
focused on textbook genres. Should textbooks consist
exclusively of non-fiction prose, like reference books? The
question may be considered from different angles. One
approach is that taken by Myers, who investigated the use of
dialogue in educational texts over a relatively long period of
time (Myers 1990). He ascertained that dialogue is a very
common literary form which is rapidly gaining even more
ground in our century. He contends that the form neither
reduces the "realism" of a presentation nor the authority of
a text (see Olson, page 173). Mauri Åhlberg (Åhlberg 1991)
points out that the monologue-dialogue ratio has rarely been
used as an approach to investigations of educational discourse
(the latter referring to both oral and written text). Other
examples of ideas involving the comprehensiveness of genres
in educational texts have been put forth in Harold Rosen's
The Importance of Story (1985), Kieran Egan's Teaching as
Story Telling (1986), Herdis Toft's Story Flora. On
the
Didactic Function of the Story (1990), and Eiliv Vinje's
Stories and Composition Training (1990). Gilbert T. Sewall of
the American Textbook Council coined the motto Rededicate
the textbook to the text:
Textbook reform efforts should concentrate on enlivening
passages, making them less impersonal and providing more
human drama. Textbook historiography should abandon
readability formulas that can dumb material down. In fact,
it should welcome complex sentences and challenging
vocabulary, where appropriate, as such writing can expand
both comprehension of the subject and appreciation of
literature. (Sewall 1987, p. 74.)
The most comprehensive discussion of this topic may be
found in Gillham 1986 (see page 199).
The reader-book relationship has only lately been given
much attention, even by readability specialists. Rosenblatt
1978 and Fisch 1980 represented a breakthrough. The former
pointed out that no text is complete until it has been read,
and that there must of necessity be several ways to read all
texts since they are used by people with vastly different
backgrounds, even if they are the same age. The latter goes
a step further and claims that groups of reading and
interpretation patterns emerge which are determined more by
society than by individuals. Suzanne de Castell has pointed
out the significance of such viewpoints in discussing the
relationship between the authority of the teacher and that of
the textbook. She herself believes that "For all the
educational value and justification such critical theories
might have for teachers' practice, however, outside the
English class, most student textbooks are likely to remain
`beyond criticism'." (De Castell 1990, p. 78.) De Castell
claims that as long as the receptive and regurgitative attitude
toward textbooks remains unchanged in the classroom,
textbooks will also remain unchanged.
Textual linguist Mauri Åhlberg's analyses of text structures
(see page 212) may be viewed as an argument in favor of the
same view. In a more recent work (Åhlberg 1991), the author
concludes that good learning may require pupils and teachers
to adopt the same searching attitude toward the text/world as
the scientist assumes:
Probably the best way to learn deeply would be to make
learning more like solving problems of real life, similar to
investigations, and small scale cooperative research
projects. Concept mapping and argumentation analysis
could be used as flexible tools also in that kind of teaching
and learning. (Åhlberg 1991, p. 43.)
This view is supported by John Ahier, who argues that
textbook analyses have overlooked possible opportunities for
and ways of using books. In a chapter of Ahier 1988 called
"The Text and the Child", the author charges that
"approaches to textbooks have never established the
particular nature of such books except with regard to their
use by children" (p. 41). Like others who have addressed the
topic, he denies that there is any "universal method of
`reading' all texts, or a universal standpoint for all contexts
from which all texts can be read." (P. 41.) Probably the
closest anyone can come to such a universal standpoint in
research would literally be to insist on coordination between
intention and category (see page 345).
Such coordination would imply a view of the textbook as
an object of research - and the pupil as a researcher - also in
the classroom (Björnsson 1967; see page 190). Historian Kåre
Lunden has indirectly justified such a view on the basis of
the need to rescue reading motivation in an age in which
"loaded" material is made "worthless" and thereby
insignificant in the textbooks (see page 134). In that context,
it is important to note that Thomas S. Kuhn used natural
science textbooks as his starting point when he presented his
theories on paradigm changes. This took place before that oft
quoted book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, was
published in 1962 (Kuhn 1962). He presented the view in a
collection of articles (Kuhn 1962a), in which he writes that
researchers are not the only occupational group to borrow
standards and methods from the instruction of others.
Sometimes these elements are borrowed at a very early point
in time:
Perhaps the most striking feature of scientific education is
that, to an extent quite unknown in other creative fields,
it is conducted through textbooks, works written especially
for students. Until he is ready, or very nearly ready, to
begin his own dissertation, the student of chemistry,
physics, astronomy, geology, or biology is seldom either
asked to attempt trial research projects or exposed to the
immediate products of research done by others - to, that is,
the professional communications that scientists write for
their peers. Collections of "source reading" play a
negligible role in scientific education. Nor is the science
student encouraged to read the historical classics of his
field - works in which he might encounter other ways of
regarding the questions discussed in his text, but in
which
he would also meet problems, concepts, and standards of
solution that his future profession had long-since discarded
and replaced. (Kuhn 1962, p. 350.)
Still, there is certainly no active consensus aimed at realizing
the standpoint of the reader as researcher. Although such an
approach would undoubtedly be consistent with the spirit of
more recent curricula, it is extremely rare to come across
textbook prefaces like this one (for a 5th grade textbook):
This textbook is not in itself history. Nor is it in itself
geography. It is only one of millions of books written on
these subjects. And the books are written by different
people who in turn have read what others have read and
written.
Imagine a stage so deep that no one can see where
it
ends. That is history. And the stage is placed in a setting
so
vast that no one can see all of it. That is geography.
In front of it all hangs a curtain that stretches
all the
way to heaven. No one can remove the curtain. But it is
possible to pull it aside a wee bit and get a glimpse. This
textbook is just such a glimpse. (Johnsen 1992, p. 5.)
Viewing textbook texts as interpretable expressions would
represent something of a revolution for most teachers and
pupils, as evidenced clearly by the few investigations based
on surveys of pupils' opinions (Sosniak 1990). Staffan
Selander (Selander 1990; see page 80) has defined the
textbook as a genre and asked whether the books, such as
they are, can really be considered worthy of interpretation:
The textbooks are not written by the great minds of
humanity although we do in these texts find traces of a
cultural world. Nor does it seem very meaningful trying to
detect the author's purpose with the text although there is
an institutionally determined purpose. (...) The reader
cannot choose any kind of "frame" (to frame a text is to
read the text out of a specific perspective: a novel can be
read as a biography or as a fantasy, as a true story or as a
fictitious story, etc.) and thus construct any possible
meaning out of the texts in the textbook, simply because
the framing is already at hand. It is also to be read as
a true
representation of the outside world, as objective, necessary
and real. (Selander 1990, p. 147, my emphasis.)
I have added emphasis to the last sentence. The claim made
there may be assessed on two levels. First, does it cover the
prevailing attitudes and, second, if so, is one of the textbook's
main tasks to influence such attitudes?
As I see it, the answer to both questions is yes. Anyone
who aims at change such as that mentioned above must ask
what should come first: a change in the attitude of those who
write the books or of those who use them? Should the book
come first and change the teaching, or does teaching have to
be revolutionized first? Where does textbook research fit into
the picture? Ian Westbury has stressed that one single link
should not be blamed for the breakdown of a system
comprised of weak links (Westbury 1982, see page 289). This
survey has revealed a clear tendency for textbook research to
focus too unilaterally on individual links in the system. Based
on this, contemporaneousness and coordination, as attempted
by Verduin-Muller (see page 251), must be the optimal
solution for anyone wanting to see change.
Different textbook investigations use the word "method" in
vastly different senses. It has been used as a synonym for
scale (e.g., use of time) and as a unit of measurement (e.g.,
number of pages). The word has also been used to refer to the
type of source material used (e.g., statistics). Further, it has
been used to describe the practical procedures employed (e.g.,
interviews or classroom observation). Finally, it has been used
to refer to the mode of analysis, where it is common to
distinguish between quantitative and qualitative.
The complex textbook, teaching and knowledge concept
per se (see page 157) entails that every practical study will
include several of these factors, or possibly just one of them
which will thereby become so comprehensive that it will have
to be divided into smaller, independent units. In addition,
neither "textbook", "teaching" nor "knowledge" are factors
which will remain static from subject to subject or from level
to level. Separately, they may be dissected and classified into
groups. Such groups may resemble each other in two parallel
investigations, but that doesn't necessarily mean they've been
given the same designation. Conversely, the same designation
may be used to refer to several different phenomena. The
survey has shown that there are a multitude of possible
combinations and variations. The sections entitled
Perspectives include all the following factors, to the extent
they were available in each individual case:
- Intention of the investigation,
- Categorization,
- Material,
- Mode of analysis.
A consistent effort has been made to systematize the
investigations according to what has invariably been called
approaches. In this presentation the term refers to intention
as well as categories, based on the rationale that categories are
selected and determined on the basis of the intention and that
the categories themselves may influence the intention. This
standpoint calls for a more precise definition of the term
categorization, which in its broadest sense refers to the
process, use or production-related aspects of the textbook
phenomenon in question. The most comprehensive theoretical
system of categorization for textbook analyses was devised by
Peter Weinbrenner, who uses 25 overlapping categories,
ordered according to the following five "Dimensionen":
"Wissenschaftstheorie / Design / Fachwissenschaft /
Fachdidaktik / Facherzeihungswissenschaft". In turn, these
"Dimensionen", or factors, fall into a single higher category:
they are parts of a "produktorientierten, wirtschafts- und
sozialwissenschaftlichen Schulbuchforschung" (Weinbrenner
1986a, p. 327). One example of a broad and open form of
categorization may be seen in Olsson 1986. In the 1980s,
culture became a central, highly controversial field of
research. Olsson harmonizes a relatively new concept (cultural
perception) in another subject (geography), as it is developed
in textbooks (language and pictures), with the curricula
(school history and politics) and the science of history.
However, the term categorization is most often used in
a
very restricted sense, as exemplified in DsU 1980: 4 (see page
385), where the discussion of method states that "to conduct
a meaningful discussion, one must somehow reduce the data,
i.e. one must categorize" (p. 28). The same source contends
that categorization must satisfy two criteria: Categories must
be "mutually exclusive" and they must be "so well-defined
that anyone will be able to repeat the classification or
establish new categories of his own." However, the source
also states that the content of the categories will generally be
controversial, often due to superficial disagreement. The most
important point is not the categories in themselves. It is "not
until they are applied to a problem, that one can judge the
quality." (P. 28.)
Liberal, open categorization usually combines an inter-
disciplinary perspective and a broad outlook with
corresponding limitations on verifiability and scientific
character. The more narrow the categorization, the greater the
reliability - and the greater the corresponding reduction in
perspective. The formul-ations expounded in DsU 1980:4 are
representative of the efforts to comply with traditional, social
science research ideals rather than of attempts to seek out
new models based on the attributes of the textbook. The more
narrowly defined the category - for example the ability of
the pupils in a given class at a given level to find synonyms
for a given number of foreign words in a particular book -
the greater the apparent chance to achieve "tenable" results
in the sense that they can be tested and proven to have a high
degree of reliability and validity (Holsti 1969, Holter 1990).
Such limitations may satisfy certain requirements as regards
objectivity, but they are worthless if they haven't been
thoroughly correlated with an equally precise statement of
intention for the project of which they are part. The
overwhelming majority of textbook analyses that claim to be
scientific invest a great deal of methodological preparation in
detailing exactly what they will and will not investigate. It
usually turns out that this work has no reasonable correlate in
the justification for making the investigation or in its
objective. Hence the relationship between a precisely defined
intention and the choice of categories and units of
measurement remains obscure or poorly clarified.
This problem has been placed within a frame of scientific
theory by historian Kåre Lunden (Lunden 1990). Lunden's
analysis applies to textbooks, not to textbook research.
However, his criticism of the books necessitates an answer to
the question of how authors view textbooks. Indirectly, the
study eventually reveals a strong correlation between the
problems of the textbook writer, the teacher and the textbook
researcher as regards attitudes and procedures. This fact has
also been a recurrent theme in this survey. The same
complexity that faces teachers when they set up evaluation
criteria for "a good textbook" confronts the textbook
researcher when he sets out to define his task.
Lunden criticizes the history and social studies textbooks
used in Norway in the past few decades as being "worth-
less" in every sense of the word, saying there are no more
attitudes left in them to uncover. To Lunden, this situation is
symptomatic of a cultural crisis. It may be interpreted as a
more or less involuntary perversion of the natural sciences'
ideal of objectivity. In an effort to justify his claim, Lunden
discusses the relationship between the natural sciences and
the humanities. The two fields explore different types of
objects; the scholar's objects (ideas, actions, institutions) are
man-made and thus serve a purpose - "the end constitutes
the object" (p. 222). From this, Lunden draws the following
conclusion about methodological approaches in the
humanities:
The humanities have a special object, and are in a special
situation, which, as I see it, means that the humanist, when
identifying a meaningful phenomenon, is dependent on
building on his own, inner experience of sense or meaning.
As far as I can see, this does not entail that the
fundamental method - the identification of phenomena as
belonging to general classes - can be unlike the scientific.
But it may entail that the results - the identifications
- in
the humanities are particularly uncertain, and in a special
way relatively subjective. (Lunden 1990, p. 229; my
emphasis.)
Then member of the National Humanities Research Council
Søren Kjørup wrote a preface to Jørgen Møller's
analysis of
Danish history books (Møller 1983): "The Humanities in
Research and Communication." Like Kåre Lunden, he
emphasizes the intrinsic nature of and prerequisites for
humanities research: "(...) not merely the creation of new
knowledge, but also the creation of new points of view, new
interpretations." (P. 11.) At the most profound level, this is
the same premise which more or less consciously underlies
Cronbach's image of the researcher as poet, or of the support
expressed by Gordon and Antonietti for the analogy as a
guideline (see below). Lee J. Cronbach writes that a theory
may be compared to a poem: "Its function is to create out of
a mass of fact or impression an epitome which gives the sense
of the whole"; theory may be removed from fact as
Shakespeare's Henry V is from the documents that
originated during that monarch's reign (Cronbach 1955, p.
61). The determination and use of theory will inevitably
entail interpretations which play some things up and others
down.
Regardless of the argumentative weight we might attach to
Cronbach's comparison, the example says something about the
effect of analogies. More than a generation after Cronbach,
David Gordon wrote about "a new, rather exciting
perspective that has developed in the social sciences:
understanding social life through analogies derived from the
humanities rather than from the natural sciences" (Gordon
1988, p. 426). Such a perspective changes the scientific mode
of thought; society is viewed less as a systematic organism
than as "a serious game, a sidewalk drama, or a behavioral
text" (Geertz 1980, p. 168). Gordon refers to Paul Ricoeur's
theories concerning the school's hidden curriculum (Ricoeur
1981) and adopts Geertz' standpoint to use one
phenomenon/analogy as the main expression for school and
education: Text. School is a text. Gordon attempts to illustrate
how such a paramount, analogical perspective can pave the
way for a new understanding of - in casu - "educational
phenomena".
Analogies are often useful in trying to discover new points
of view: "Basically, the development of a new theory in the
scientific disciplines has been and will continue to be
relatively frequently justified by an analogy to an entirely
different field of study." (Antonietti 1991, p. 111.) An
analogy can pave the way for new interpretations of all the
facts at hand - "facts" which, in new contexts, may be
subject to change. Naturally, the analogy may also be used as
a methodological starting point without precluding tried and
proven systems of evaluation.
Of interest here is the demand for versality in Marxist
scientific theory, as developed by the Frankfurt school and
Habermas ("das Erkenntnis leitende Interesse"). A program
is acceptable only when it does not destroy "(...) den
forschungslogischen Zusammenhang zwischen
Erkenntnisinteressen, wissenschaftlichen Fragestellungen,
Untersuchungsmethoden und Interpretationen der
Ergebnisse." (Klafki 1978; here quoted from Schubert 1987,
p. 38.) Yet this versatility is not contingent upon having a
Marxist outlook; it may be required and applied without its
purpose necessarily being emancipatory, for example. Nor is
it particularly new (Kuhn 1962; see page 337). Cronbach and
McMurray outlined the same pers-pective in their 1955 work.
More than 20 years later Peter Meyers presented a similar
program in his basic introduction to different analytical
methods (Meyers 1976). He sums up his introduction in six
"Grundregeln für zukünftige Schulbuchanalysen" (pp. 68-
69). His primary assertion is worded as follows in points 1
and 2:
Every textbook analysis should start with a thorough
discussion of goals and the purpose of the work. This is
even more important since it has been demonstrated that
the method selected is strongly influenced by the objective.
The writer of a textbook analysis must be fully aware of
the relevance of his objective. (...) Investigations without
clearly delimited categories fall outside the realm of any
discussion. (Meyers 1976, p. 68.)
It is also the "particularly uncertain" (Lunden) aspect of the
humanities' identifications that constitutes my own
justification for insisting that a close connection be made
between intention and category. It is not sufficient for an
author to state that he has examined an account of this or that
trade at one place or another during this or that period of
time in these or those social studies books, and that the job
was commissioned by a particular trade association. Nor is it
sufficient for the author to state that he is in some way
biased, e.g., that his investigation is based on the assumption
that the trade is underrepresented or that a description of it
is somehow distorted. The author must also indicate why it is
relevant to shed light on this point in particular, and justify
his choice of categories systematically to coincide with such
an account. A broad, readily quantifiable factor like the
number of lines of text dealing directly with the trade in
question, or a narrower category like business administration,
are meaningless unless meticulously related to the aim of the
investigation.
The viewpoint concerning the connection between
intention and category does not preclude the fact that
categories will necessarily develop from vastly different
points of departure. They may spring from registration and
source material, from didactical points, or from social debate.
Theoretically speaking, the number of starting points is
legion. The most important point is that the categorization is
accurate and obvious in light of the intention and the
identification, which may " or should " emerge "in a special
way relatively subjective" (Lunden).
I now return to the statement that "textbooks are hopeless no
matter how you approach them" (see Johansson, page 158).
Another analogy might be useful in this context. I have
chosen one from the world of children's toys. There is,
undoubtedly, something kaleidoscopic about the nature of
textbook content and textbook use. (A kaleidoscope is a
tubular device containing mirrors and small bits of colored
glass. The child looks through a peephole at one end and the
backlighted colors on the other end form new pat-terns each
time the tube is turned.) Like the bits of colored glass, the
majority of written texts in the school are being studied
within rather closed walls (the textbooks). But don't teachers
wield some influence? Yes, in the sense that they occasionally
make small adjustments to the mirrors from the outside,
adjustments which cause but minor changes in the
constellations formed by the pages.
As the texts on these pages are sustained inside the system,
they don't change with the passage of time. Some would
reject this analogy on the grounds that new books flow into
the system all the time. On the other hand, the comparison
may still be valid because the renewal has been no stronger
than that it might be compared to the somewhat arbitrary
light conditions (political, educational and methodological
currents), which simply affect the quality of the same old
figures. The main rule is that the laws of nature within the
walls are stronger than the forces on the outside. These laws,
this textbook language, form their own Kaleidoscopia which
is the school's own and, some would say, infinitely
unrevisable text, eclipsing the authority of curricula, teachers
and books. In that perspective, true change might be obtained
only or primarily from the inside by blowing up the
kaleidoscope.
It is possible to stretch the analogy far enough to
accommodate pupils as well. A child does not make a sharp
distinction between himself and what he sees. The child who
looks at the glass bits or reads the books is both an onlooker
and a participant in the apparatus/system. The analogy
becomes somewhat misleading at this point. A child at play
twists and shakes the kaleidoscope, following his own rhythm
to decide for himself when to change the pattern. Many
would contend that pupils do not always enjoy the same
freedom in the school kaleidoscope.
A textbook researcher revisiting his childhood can no
longer be both an observer and a participant. Granted, he
may relive reading situations and be moved by memories of
first experiences, but during the second round of reading he
is an outsider, an observer of both child and school.
Influenced by adult philosophies of education, he will try to
penetrate his children's - not his own childhood's - schooling
and reading. To do so, he needs a system-atic point of view;
a method or, if you will, another kaleidoscope that can be
placed around the school's own kaleidoscopes to reveal the
patterns in their hodgepodge of books. In this sense, the
kaleidoscope becomes a reflection of both object and method.
The researcher encounters at least one important limitation.
He must choose among different procedures which are all
imperfect. His most drastic recourses are, on the one hand, to
shake the apparatus hard and often ("impressionistic") and,
on the other, to hold the kaleidoscope in a fixed position,
frozen on particular constellations for certain periods of time,
with certain bits in focus and the light just so ("scientific").
The most reassuring course of action, and the preferred one,
has been not to upset the research kaleidoscope too much.
Educational literature abounds with descriptions of "captured
moments". But as for the school kaleidoscope, isn't it always
in motion? Although it may move slowly, without major
shake-ups, isn't it nevertheless perpetually in motion? Texts,
readers and venues change. It also turns out that even if the
same methods are applied to the factors in a number of
investigations, no two investigations will ever have identical
constellations - any more than two kaleidoscope images will
ever be completely identical.
The crucial point would be one of simultaneity: Textbook
research must become less of an "after the event"-activity
and more of an integrated part of the development and use of
textbooks. The requirements should be based on the
realization that the goal constitutes the object. Textbook
research will not command broad, general interest until it is
synchronized with development and use. This is consistent
with the distinctive qualities inherent in textbooks as
processes, instruments and products. Textbook research is
research into the transmission of knowledge. Like the
interdisciplinary factor, this brand of distinctive quality
should warrant this research. We should not assume that the
primary goal of current international textbook research is to
eliminate any interpretations which could be perceived as
being biased. Some would claim it is more important to fight
functional illiteracy; to produce readily-comprehensible
books which teach pupils knowledge of subjects as well as
independence. This is hardly the case for most textbook
readers today. If textbook research is to lead to any
improvement, the planning and performance of every
research project should be accompanied by developmental
and information work that, in one way or another, implicates
all involved parties in a more open form of educational
culture:
- Those who determine message and content: Professional
and research communities at colleges and universities,
political bodies, school-related legislation
and curricula;
- Those who produce and distribute the books: Authors,
editors, designers, consultants and marketing experts;
- Those who evaluate and select books: School boards,
teachers' councils, individual teachers;
- Those who use the books: Pupils, teachers, parents.
Conducting research and disseminating information about it
are two sides of the same coin. Anyone wishing to learn more
about the reasons for the poor dissemination of textbook
knowledge must also investigate the choice of program and
procedures used by those who have done the research. Which
professional groups have taken part in planning such
investigations? At the university? At the school book
publishers? At school? Which system is used to communicate
views and results within the textbook research community
while the researchers themselves are busy collecting and
processing material? Which teachers get the opportunity to
contribute their experiences before the results are printed in
a journal they may never read? Which pupils ever hear about
it?
Every research project ought to begin by stating the type
of interdisciplinary approach selected for the study in
question, then be conducted accordingly. Further, no
investigation, even if it is directly associated with only one of
the links in the textbook chain, should overlook any of the
other links. Research results must be exchanged, processed
and developed in a continuous cycle of researchers - syllabus
planners - authors - publishers - teachers - pupils. Results
must not be brought in from the outside as more or less
random precipitates of the indisputable facts ultimately left
intact after an isolated investigation. The textbook should
represent both a research object and a research result.
The principle regarding the coordination of many links is,
in turn, a result of the fact that textbook research still lacks
a platform in the world of science. Such recognition is
essential if the field is to gain status and develop further. The
solution must be to ascertain an overall definition of the
discipline which takes ample account of its interdisciplinary
nature. Such an open outlook should also enable researchers
to ask the right questions and thus choose the most useful
tasks.
Go to: | Top of page | Next >