Textbooks: Expectations vs. Reality the DNA Story

In reality, what we unavoidably often get from our textbooks is less than complete satisfaction. Whatever is in our textbooks should at least be correct and free from errors in the content provided; errors of omission (failure to mention specific topics) are often merely subjective opinions of the individual reviewer. We also want texts that are easy to read, and understand, but some teachers might object that this goal has been achieved through oversimplifications and/or the misuse of metaphors. Our textbooks should be well illustrated by pictures or diagrams whenever they would aid in comprehension and retention of complex subjects. We want to challenge our students to think critically, evaluate data, and reach unbiased, well-reasoned conclusions. Our textbooks can help here by providing multiple examples of how the methods of science, logic, and reason have been applied to solving specific biological problems. Both authors and publishers of scientific textbooks are aware of the breadth vs. depth problem. Textbooks cannot be encyclopedias. Largely because of curriculum demands, most textbooks tend to superficially cover more topics rather than select fewer topics and explore each of them in greater detail. It thus often becomes the teacher's responsibility to provide important details that students need to really understand complex biological topics such as ecology and evolution. Another dilemma facing textbook authors is the amount of attention that should be given to subjects of historical interest versus the space allotted to the latest research. New discoveries in biology can stimulate interest and excitement in both student and teacher, and sometimes may even force us to reconsider well-established beliefs. Overthrowing paradigms is one way that science progresses. However, without historical perspectives, students will be deprived of a well-rounded education and cannot be expected to develop a better understanding of, and appreciation for, how we have attained our present level of scientific knowledge (Stansfield, 2000).