Selecting Texts
There are three types of texts I have traditionally assigned: the textbook; the primary document or documents; and secondary sources. Let’s begin with the textbook.
My experience as an undergraduate history major and as a graduate student instructor was that everyone assigned a textbook, but professors never used it and students rarely read it. Two types of students read it: the ultra-dedicated and the absentee. Only the lone student who never came to class but turned in essays with copious references to the textbook seemed to get anything out of the book (but rarely passed the class since attendance was a huge factor). I saw textbooks purchased, toted, and then sold back by the hundreds. And, for my first years teaching, this was my approach. I boldly explained to my students that I was their textbook and that I assigned one for the students who wanted more information or for background for their essay assignments.
When I decided to be honest with myself, I realized three disturbing points about my teaching; (1) I had no good rationales for the textbooks I assigned; (2) I was inconsiderate about the money my students spent on the textbooks; and (3) I was failing to utilize an incredible resource, for when I looked into the textbooks, they were full of wonderful vignettes, ideas, and concepts.
So now it’s time for me to get it right with my students and a textbook. The first priority must be that they read it – and for that, it’s imperative that I build the textbook into discussions, examinations, and papers (more on this later about assignments). The second priority is that it be affordable. My students have a lot of bills – cell phones, car loans, rent, and Jamba Juice. They’re calculus book will probably cost more than $100; they’re history book shouldn’t. For this reason, I’ve selected Kevin Schultz’s Hist. The reasons are simple. It’s inexpensive. It’s short – each chapter is only 10 to 15 pages. It has a nice balance of political narrative with social and cultural history (for instance, we learn about comic book characters on several occasions). There are drawbacks to it, though, and I’ll be discussing those throughout the semester. I’ve tried lots of other textbooks, and they all have much to offer. Foner provides a single narrative. America: A Narrative History is a terrific read. Zinn packs a punch. But when it comes to cost and effectiveness, Hist is the book for me.
Next, primary documents. These are crucial, for they’re the “stuff” of historical research and writing. I need my students to be able to analyze primary documents so they can learn to “think for themselves.” Also, it was reading primary documents that led me to love history – that I could actually “see” something others had not. In years past, I assigned a few novels, such as Bread Givers (a tremendous novel about Jewish immigrant life). I found that these longer primary texts had limited appeal. Some students read them, but many never bothered to break them open. Also, works like The Autobiography of Malcolm X or All God’s Dangers were just too long. I found that if a book was too thick, students were immediately turned off by it.
Now, I use Major Problems in American History because it combines primary sources and secondary ones. You’re probably familiar with this series, but basically these books have a set of 8-10 primary documents and then 2 scholarly articles making big claims about the discussed era. The set of documents gives me easy access to texts of the past and short descriptions so students can know what they’re looking at. The scholarly essays offer digestible historical analysis so that students can situate their arguments within the context of historical debates. I use the Major Problems documents and historical essays for their thesis papers. When they write on “what was so depressing about the Great Depression,” they use the primary documents here and the secondary sources. Throughout this semester, I’m going to have students discuss here on this blog which documents worked and which ones did not (the discussion will be part of their grade!).
For secondary sources, I rarely assign a monograph. I find that they take too much time for the short semester and that students rarely read the entire book. Of all the monographs assigned to me as an undergraduate, I read only one in its entirety: The Kingdom of Matthias (and I only read that because it had a lot of quirky sex going on). All the others, I stopped reading once I had enough material for the assigned essay.
Finally, some honest disclaimers. Both of the books I assign are published by Cengage; I’m the co-editor of one of them; Kevin Schultz is the author of the other and I count him as a friend. I have professional, personal, and financial incentives to assign these books.
But, to be truly honest, I used Major Problems before I was an editor and assigned Hist before I even knew Kevin. In addition, throughout this semester, I plan to be as critical of them as I would of other textbooks or sources. I have lots of bones to pick with both of the books and in this blog we’re going to discuss what doesn’t work, what doesn’t make sense, what’s flat-out wrong, and how these books (and others) could be improved. I hope this blog, in fact, will help improve both books significantly. And when bundled together for sale Hist and Major Problems in American History are quite affordable (my students are always thrilled by how little they spend for my class).
What texts are you using this fall and why? If you forego a textbook, how have your students responded to that? How do you come up with primary texts to use? In short, what’s worked and what hasn’t?
Great post, Edward. As you assess your texts this fall, I hope you’ll consider evaluating our site, Milestone Documents (http://www.milestonedocuments.com/signup/educators). Some professors use us as a primary source reader alongside a traditional textbook, others (e.g. Jonathan Rees at Colorado State) as a textbook replacement as well. The cost is $16.95 per student per semester, so it’s affordable in either scenario. I hope you’ll check us out!
That’s a neat resource, Neil. Thanks. I think it’s a great way to put together a packet of sources. I like Major Problems, in part, because it does a lot of that work for me, provides terrific commentaries and introductions, and has secondary selections that use many of the sources involved. There are other good primary document readers out there, too – like the historical detection books.
Totally makes sense, Edward. Note that our documents are accompanied by in-depth analysis and commentary by a team of 300 scholars from around the world, which is one reason some profs have been able to ditch their textbooks by using our site. Alas, we don’t have the secondary selections you mention. I don’t envy your task–it’s got to be a huge challenge to set up a compelling course with great materials but also to balance your students’ economic limitations.
It’s great to have so many documents accessible – and in so many venues. Alas, I remember the days well when to get a primary document, I actually had to walk to the library 🙂
As Lisa Cobbs Hoffman and I were editing the new edition of _Major Problems in American History_ we tried to make sure that our primary documents were used by the differing scholarly essays so that students could see how different scholars use the same sources (and then come up with their own arguments from the same evidence). It works for me, but there are certainly lots of other ways to do it. Really enjoying your comments Neil!
Hi Ed,
this is very helpful. Not sure I have much to add as I don’t teaching US History survey courses, though I’ve taught surveys of Am. religion at a state university (from colonial America to about the 1980s or so). I’ve used, as a preparation for class, the material in the Major Problems and find them very helpful in thinking through the design of a course. What I have found especially helpful are the Bedford series. For example, I always get excellent discussion on Jeffrey P. Moran’s “The Scopes Trial” as I’ve had students who have never read the primary documents and Moran’s long intro. sets up the material in a superb manner (I teach this for my survey grad seminar, Religion in America, Civil War to the 1920s). Also, in my Christianity and Slavery Course, I’ve also made use of Kenneth Greenberg’s “The Confessions of Nat Turner.” These Bedford books are almost ideal in that they usually have the entire text of a primary source, preceded by a good intro. by an expert on the topic, suggestions for further readings, and they are relatively inexpensive. I’m always on the lookout for some combination of this sort. I’ve found that they are really enjoyed and seriously read and engaged by both graduate and undergraduates, depending on the the nature of the course. Don’t have much to say about textbooks they are frowned upon by those in religious studies, though I’ve sometimes thought that undergrads. could really benefit from the general narrative and the basic facts (which they often lack).
Thanks again for this very help rationale for your syllabus.
The Bedford books are fantastic; I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, I use them for my own research too. And … i’m not sure if this is definite or not, but I think Matthew Sutton has one coming out on the religious right. My favorite is Greenberg’s … just excellent work.
Would love to know what textbooks religious studies folks use.
I went through the process of selecting a U.S. history survey textbook and course reader for the first time last year. I agree that there are a number of students who perhaps never break the cover of the textbook. I thought about assigning the digital textbook that is on the University of Houston website. However, I went with Kevin’s HIST to avoid any unforeseeable problems that might arise by using an online textbook. I selected this text because it provided basic coverage at an affordable price. In hindsight I am glad I decided to go with a published textbook because it provides a better method for students to cognitively organize the narrative of U.S. history.
As far as selecting a documents reader, I ended up creating my own. For one, this allowed me to better tailor section discussion content. For another, several discussion section lessons involved employing different analytical approaches and/or activities. Therefore I could not justify the cost of a reader for the number of weeks I planned to use it.
It was a lot of work to edit and assemble my own course reader and during the first semester my expectations surpassed reality. Some readings worked out great, while others totally flopped. Things went much better the second semester after I retrenched and replaced or edited documents that did not work.
Best,
Wayne Ratzlaff
Thanks Wayne. I’ll look forward to hearing about what documents worked, which ones didn’t, and how Hist worked for you as we move forward throughout the semester. I’m working on my Reconstruction materials right now. Next post from me will be on assignments, which is where I see the syllabus getting wrapped all together.
Look forward to following along with the students I teach – Edward, your remark, “Now, “America in the world” is a key part of my material, Islam is addressed (and not just the Nation of Islam), and Afghanistan gets mentioned on several occasions,” resonates, especially for those of us teaching “internationalized” sections of the survey. See ARTILLERY OF HEAVEN: American Missionaries and the Failed Conversion of the Middle East, by Ussama Makdisi, for insights on America and the Arab world for US 1 & 2.
Great stuff, Ed and Curtis. Ed, I’d love to hear your thoughts (perhaps in a new post?) about format: have you begun to take into account whether something is available in electronic format, and whether that is helpful to students? Obviously your _Major Problems_ is available every which way, including by the chapter. This would seem to be a boon for students. But when I see professors discussing possible texts for use in the classroom, I rarely see any nod to the format issues. With the explosion of titles available for iPad and even now Facebook (with the Kno titles), students are probably going to want as many options as possible.
Format is a huge point, especially now with new techs like the ipad. I know that Foner currently has some material that is on the ipad, but not other readers like the Kindle, etc. I’ll put together a tech/format piece for next week as a follow up. Thanks a ton for bringing it up!
And Makdisi’s work is fantastic for those points!!! Tim Marr’s work on American Islamicism helps for first half of US history survey too.
I’m experimenting this semester with Lendol Calder’s “uncoverage” approach.
http://www.journalofamericanhistory.org/textbooks/2006/calder/index.html
I wanted a model that would integrate the textbook into the course, since it didn’t make much sense to assign a text and then never refer to it. So, following Calder’s suggestion of choosing two texts that approach American history from different points of view, I’ve paired Foner with Schweikart and Allen’s A Patriot’s History of the United States. Although Calder goes with Zinn, I thought my primarily white Texan students would be more open to Foner’s “liberal” take on American history than Zinn’s “radical” interpretation. The idea is not simply to allow the students to compare and debate the different interpretive moves employed in both works, but also to give them some tools to evaluate pressing contemporary debates over the uses and abuses of history in the public sphere (as played out in Texas and Virginia recently). For primary sources I’m using Foner’s Voices of Freedom.
David G.,
I’ve always wondered about this approach. It sounds completely reasonable though, so please keep us informed as the semester goes along. Also, I’m dying to hear about the two textbook approach–the sacrifice I was always afraid of was exposing students to fewer primary sources, but on the other hand they get the idea pretty plainly that history is pliable, and open to interpretation. Keep us informed.
Kevin
As a TA, I’ve taught for faculty with very different approaches to textbooks, sources, and teaching. Several only use “real” books (monographs — though some more “trade”-oriented) + primary sources. One used a mix of a textbook (which no one read), essays, and selected primary sources. And one used a textbook + a Major Problems book. Frankly, the latter was the absolute worst from a teaching/discussion perspective. To be fair to the books, one the reasons was that the prof tended to assign clumps from the Major Problems and there were too many readings per discussion to get through so students didn’t read them well or at all. I found the editing of that particular volume to be less than ideal — chunks were too short or too long or poorly framed, and the essays didn’t always include the most salient points (having read most in the original, I knew what was missing).
In contrast, I taught for 2 faculty who in surveys only assign books + documents. They selected books very carefully — and selection seems to me to be the key thing no matter the texts. They opted for readable books and spread the reading over about 3 sessions. Books like The Seventies (Schulman), All the Shah’s Men (Kinzer), Radio Free Dixie (Tyson), Inventing the American Way (Wall), Storming Caesar’s Palace (Orleck) went over really well with students. Different iterations of the class used different combinations of texts (and almost always included one novel as well). This was fun stuff — lots to chew on, great information, and gaps that discussion could reveal and press students to think about.
In my limited experience, textbooks and the Major Problems series are better for the professor to use to guide a selection of material and use the whole document, not just a snippet. I think textbooks on reserve at the library can be beneficial, but I’d rather support scholars and their work and show students that history can be written in lively, engaging ways.
Colleagues: I have nothing substantive to add, but I want to congratulate Ed and Kevin for a great blog idea. This post in particular is going to be helpful for me next year. – TL