Search News


Browse Archives

News

Why Students Read Textbooks (or Don't)

August 20, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The adage that a picture is worth a thousand words may hold true for textbooks.

Research presented Saturday in San Francisco at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association explored how students evaluate textbooks and the factors that make them more or less likely to read textbooks. The research was designed to build on studies that have previously found many students who skip buying textbooks and many others who buy and don't read -- despite evidence showing that careful readers of textbooks earn higher grades.

The study was based on surveys of 230 undergraduates in an introductory psychology course at a Midwestern university. The courses were not identified further except to say that they were not courses taught by the authors of the paper, Regan A.R. Gurung, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Wisconsin at Green Bay, and Ryan Martin, an assistant professor there.

Their findings:

Four factors (not all of which professors can control) best predicted whether students would spend more time with the textbook: gender of the students, the quality of visuals and the quality of photographs in the books, and the extent to which professors link assigned textbook sections to lectures and other in-class work.

On gender, women are more likely than men to read. On the link between professors' use of classtime and students choices, the study found that unless faculty members are explicit about the importance of students reading the text, many won't do so.

The significance of these findings, the professors write in their paper, is that faculty members need to move beyond an assumption that writing quality is the key way to evaluate textbooks. When writing quality is high, students who read the textbook appear to have benefited with a correlation in predicted exam scores. But it was the other, visual qualities, that led students to make the decision to spend more time with the text.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Why Students Read Textbooks (or Don't)

  • Posted by Richard Libowitz on August 20, 2007 at 8:40am EDT
  • As Alice says before ging down the rabbit hole, "What good is a book without pictures and illustrations?"

  • Posted by David Evans on August 20, 2007 at 9:10am EDT
  • Most topics (an exception: philosophy for the most part) lend themselves to some sort of illustration, flow chart, or diagram so authors are largely limited by their own imaginations. Some students rely more on pictures for learning than words anyway. "A picture is worth a thousand words" so I guess an author will save a lot of space!

  • Textbook Illustrations
  • Posted by V. on August 20, 2007 at 9:40am EDT
  • This study seems aimed at professors and authors, but it really should be aimed at publishers. I teach an intro Middle East history course. The text I use is written in a way that is accessible to students--the author uses slang and sarcasm to get the point across and students really "get" it. However, the maps in the book (very important in ME history) are awful. They are a mess of diagonal lines going this way and that to denote an empire's boundaries. They are confusing, particularly when trying to define borders. These maps do not reflect a defect on the part of the author--he has done his best, but a cheapness on the part of the publisher. My book is in its 8th edition and they publisher has added a number of useful chapters, but not thought to recommission the confusing maps. I have to go to a competitor's website to get decent maps! It is crazy.

  • How students learn
  • Posted by Roderick Chu , Chancellor Emeritus at Ohio Board of Regents on August 20, 2007 at 10:30am EDT
  • The real question should be: How do students learn? This study confirms that the Industrial Age notion of one-size-fits-all textbook formats and teaching methods are inappropriate if the objective is ensuring that all students learn. Other studies have noted differences in student learner types: verbal vs. visual styles (but also logical, aural, and physical styles); abstract vs. contextual learners. Educators and textbook creators -- and those who purchase their services -- must seriously ask what their educational objectives are.

  • Philosophical Flow Charts
  • Posted by kgotthardt on August 20, 2007 at 11:10am EDT
  • David, Philosophy is one of those abstract subjects that REALLY needs flow charts and illustrations. I don't think historical progressions and charted belief systems combined with cool pictures of Confucius are out of the question.

    History is the same way. Bring it to life! We are visual creatures and there is no end to how the arts can encourage students to read what's next to the pictures.

  • Posted by anon on August 20, 2007 at 12:35pm EDT
  • Yet, when I use video tools in the classroom, I always have 25-30% of the class taking a nap.

    Is it unusual that those are also the students who test poorly and seem to never read the textbook?

    I definitely want to read the original article before accepting this review at face value. I wonder if some of the implications of the importance of visual cues bypasses deeper issues.

  • Maybe it's just laziness
  • Posted by mike , Professor on August 20, 2007 at 12:50pm EDT
  • Too many students, I believe, are simply unwilling to put forth the work necessary to do well in a class. They need appealing visuals in order to decide to read a book? Who is kidding whom here?

    Part of growing up is learning to do things that aren't always fun; part is learning to defer gratification; part is learning to be responsible for one's lack of success instead of blaming others for it.

    I, too, would like to read the entire article before drawing a conclusion, but failing that, I'm still left with the usual result: Those students who want an education, instead of a piece of paper, will read. Those whose purpose for being in college isn't related to becoming educated, will need pictures to entertain them.

  • Big, fat, glossy, dumb textbooks
  • Posted by H. E. Baber on August 20, 2007 at 1:20pm EDT
  • How depressing. Textbooks get bigger, glossier and more expensive every year and accumulate more and more attached CDs and other gimmicks that students pay for. Diagrams of course are good in some areas--logic diagrams are good and I suppose in history you want to see timelines and geneologies. But most of the gloss and glitz is distracting and makes the text difficult to navigate. And attempts to make the prose racy and relevant just make the text longer.

    The real question is one of outcomes, not whether students are more or less inclined to read the text. Is there any evidence that this expensive gloss and gimmickry produces results--apart from

    This spring I'm planning to cut the cord and go textbook-free for my Analytic Phil course. I've collected the articles I want for this course, linked them to the class website and that's it. Apart from logic, I never use textbooks--just original books and articles, the real stuff. This is COLLEGE, a.k.a. HIGHER education, dammit.

  • Misquoting Alice
  • Posted by Sarah Schneewind on August 20, 2007 at 2:00pm EDT
  • "What is the use of a book without pictures or conversations?"

  • pre-fab education
  • Posted by Angelo , Professor at liberal arts on August 20, 2007 at 2:20pm EDT
  • Good for you, Baber! Students should learn the difference between pre-packaged information and knowledge. Especially in philosophy, which should teach students to question what knowledge is and how it comes to count as knowledge, a text-book approach defeats the purpose of education. Let students think rather than merely memorize information or regurgitate the professor's ideologically biased opinions.

  • textbook confessions
  • Posted by Melissa on August 20, 2007 at 2:30pm EDT
  • I was an avid textbook reader in college, and it seemed to pay off well. Oddly enough, I found pictures and diagrams distracting - too much to take in at once.

  • Textbooks, rabbit holes, and tedium
  • Posted by Dave on August 20, 2007 at 3:05pm EDT
  • Alice was not the only famous reader who dug illustrations; President B the Second said that the great thing about books is that they often have fantastic pictures (especially ones about goats, as I recall about 9/11). No wonder we're on the other side of the looking glass.
    Of course, relation of textbooks to class activity is important. In retirement I audited a course in which the professor's lectures repeated his own textbook; I dropped out (but I read the book). I assume that there are courses in which the opposite is true, in which class time and reading time are poorly related to each other.
    Because I'm a lit. prof., my texts are the subject of the course, and they're mostly words, words, words. But, oh, for Pride and Prejudice with a flow chart!
    My eighteen-year-old, though, loves reading (Descartes to Graham Greene), but he hates reading standard text books. I often have read history text books to him, with much parental commentary and discussion, to keep him attentive. I'm afraid from my wife's experiences as a text book editor that most authors of text books do not sing, and most brilliant minds who write trade books in their fields (like Stephen Hawking, Lewis Thomas, Stephen Jay Gould) haven't written hands-on text books filled with their wit and wisdom. So many textbooks seem written by drudges, trying to supplement their professorial pay. I'm glad that after college I switched from the social sciences.

  • how professors learn
  • Posted by rick on August 20, 2007 at 3:50pm EDT
  • As college students, most academicians learned successfully from lecture, note-taking, writing, and reading (mostly reading boring, unillustrated texts). That's the classroom tradition in higher ed. Because we learned successfully in those ways, we stayed in academia instead of pursuing other professional fields. So, am I to surmise that if students do not learn through MY predominant learning modalities and preferences, it is the STUDENTS' obligation to adapt to my obtuse teaching methods? Wait a minute: Isn't the college paying ME to deliver information in ways that my students can use successfully, or are the students extraneous to my teaching? Don't overlook the research results indicating that students read more if/when the professor connects the classroom activities to the texts, and don't expect students to be enthralled by that same boring lecture (from that boring book) that has put their predecessors to sleep for decades.

  • Posted by anon on August 20, 2007 at 8:45pm EDT
  • Rick said: "Wait a minute: Isn’t the college paying ME to deliver information in ways that my students can use successfully, or are the students extraneous to my teaching? Don’t overlook the research results indicating that students read more if/when the professor connects the classroom activities to the texts, and don’t expect students to be enthralled by that same boring lecture (from that boring book) that has put their predecessors to sleep for decades."

    Rick, your premise is inaccurate. Many (perhaps most) professors have actually been hired to DO RESEARCH, not teach; teaching is sort of expected but often is considered secondary. That being said, most professors take the teaching aspect of their job seriously and put in the time to actually create engaging lectures, etc. And I have encountered very few profs who did not connect the reading & lectures meaningfully.

    But, now that I am on the other side as an instructor, I have encountered far too many students who think the onus is on me to:
    1- entertain them
    2- provide detailed notes on everything I expect the student to know (from both lecture and the text)
    3- not deviate too far from the text
    4- but also introduce new content to enliven class
    5- but not too much extra..or else the textbook is worthless...until something is covered there in detail and wasn't read! [bad prof! you faked us out!]

  • The whole aim is pleasure!
  • Posted by H. E. Baber on August 21, 2007 at 3:45am EDT
  • Well I discussed this with my daughter, an undergrad history major and we came to the conclusion that what's wanted is "appropriate technology." You bet history books should have, e.g. political cartoons from the period, and of course pictures of art and artifacts. I still remember my 9th grade algebra text book that had transparent pages to show the systems of natural numbers, integers, rational and real numbers, one on top of the other. However (she said and I agreed) publishers have gone way overboard incorporating pictures that are irrelevant, CDs that are lousy which no one uses, and other expensive junk.

    I still think that we should be stretching students intellectually rather than accommodating to the conventions of pop culture. Of course nicely produced books with pictures are a pleasure to read, but for literate adults a lot of gimmickry and visual junk is distracting and kills the pleasure of reading. I'm thinking of graphic novels which I find irritating and boring. When I read for pleasure, I want to read fast and run the movie in my head--that's how educated adults read. Clot the text with lots of pictures and students will never learn to do that--never get that particular pleasure.

    It's the same with textbooks that include lots of pedagogical machinery, printed marginal notes, study questions and the like. Students are supposed to be learning what questions to ask and how to do the analysis themselves. They're supposed to be writing their own marginal notes and reading actively. My job is to model that process, to show them how to do it. What would there be for me to do if I used a textbook other than to repeat the stuff, jump around, and entertain? You give them a real article, you fill in the details and technical machinery they need, show the structure, reconstruct the arguments and strategies and it's like an interactive computer game. It's active, it's an achievement to make sense of it and criticize it.

    If students don't learn that they'll never get any pleasure out of the intellectual life. They'll just see the whole thing as a lot of dumb stuff they have to know for the test with pictures to sweeten the bitter pill. The point is that we're teaching them to get a new and different pleasure, a big pleasure, one that you have to work at in the way that you train for a sport.

  • Even philosophy can use some gloss
  • Posted by The Insider on August 21, 2007 at 8:10am EDT
  • To 'V' and 'Baber', and those of like mind:

    While photos and illustrations can contribute to a dumbed-down text, or the appearance of such, the text that dumbs it down for students is really seen first in its language. Check out John Chaffee's The Philosopher's Way (from Prentice Hall); the gloss within only intrigues the student to read more and think more, with a competent philosopher as guide.

    And no, I do not work for Prentice Hall.

  • Posted by Rosemary on August 22, 2007 at 6:20am EDT
  • speaking from a students point-of view..i must agree if the textbook is not extremely needed i personally see there is not point for it. for an example i will get my textbook for organic chem but not for my africana studies class because organic chemistry class the book is need and is paramount inorder for u to get a good grade while not the same for my africana class. plus y waste money on a book that u will never use again in your life and can't see back because it becomes outdated after a semester?

  • Posted by Ralfy on August 24, 2007 at 2:45pm EDT
  • I once read an article by someone who graduated from the U of Chicago many years ago. He wrote besides other points that he was glad that he did not discard or sell the leather-bound classics that he used when he attended Great Books classes, that he re-read many of them for years after he graduated, and that many of his old classmates ask for anyone still selling the old volumes.

    I suppose this is an example of someone who gained literally from his higher education. While many leave discarding or selling their textbooks, he leaves with a library of books that he re-reads throughout his life.

    Some might argue that they don't believe in the "great books" or the "classics," but the point is that at least he left uni with a library of books. Will this likely be the case for most students who will sell or discard their textbooks and won't remember much of what they learned from uni in the long run?

  • Dear Rosemary
  • Posted by Ron Marken , Professor on August 28, 2007 at 5:25am EDT
  • If you want to be taken seriously, remember: as a student, you are learning to be a professional member of society. Be a professional. Spell words correctly. Follow the practices of good writing. When I see "y" as a substitute for "why" I lose a measure of respect for your opinions and your care for the language. Indeed, text-messaging is part of the culture of today's youth, but in the world that will eventually pay your salary, we expect the i's to be dotted and the t's crossed when we engage in professional discourse.
    Is there a correlation between illustrated, "engaging" textbooks and an inability or unwillingness to read and write?
    Ron Marken
    Professor Emeritus
    p.s. If our younger colleagues want to move rapidly through the ranks in today's universities, bear down on your research and publish lots of articles and books. The consequences of neglecting your teaching and your students are negligible. If you have a huge research grant, no one will punish you for being an execrable teacher.

  • Original sources, please.
  • Posted by postdocked on August 28, 2007 at 10:50am EDT
  • Actually, Insider, our department prefers to use original sources when we teach undergraduate philosophy courses -- especially the intro courses. A rep from Prentice Hall tried to sell our department on the Chafee book, which is glossy and colorful and expensive, but as far as we could determine the author himself hasn't published recently in any philosophy journal. He might be a "competent philosopher" but he's neither a practicing nor publishing philosopher -- both of which are important to the way we plan the curriculum for our philosophy majors (and minors, for that matter). Of course it's probably an appropriate choice for other programs.

  • Thank you Ron!
  • Posted by Lisa , Psychprof on December 6, 2007 at 11:20am EST
  • I agree wholeheartedly with Ron's comment to Rosemary. So many students blur the lines between professional discourse and infomal chatting via e-mail and thier cell texts. Students must realize that when you do this, it sends a message that you don't care about your education, or about the person that you are communicating with. We are not your friends, your buddies... we are here to help you learn and grow.
    And, as stated before, learning and growing requires reading and thinking... that requires books...
    How can you blame the professor for insisting that you read, and be responsible for the material?

  • Posted by Mary Platner , Special Ed Teacher on May 7, 2008 at 5:25pm EDT
  • Scott, could you please provide the link to the research article that you are referencing in this story?

    Many thanks!