textbook change?

I just finished reviewing a textbook manuscript for a publisher. I really enjoy reviewing textbook manuscripts. I admit that I originally began doing them years ago because they pay so much better than teaching does (my hourly rate for reviews is about double my hourly rate for teaching), but after doing a couple in a fairly mercenary way, I began to find myself completely engrossed in the manuscripts I was reviewing and writing very heartfelt—and long—responses to authors. When Amy and I first started talking seriously about writing a textbook together a couple years ago, I started taking the reviews I was writing more seriously, too, realizing that I could at some point be on the receiving end of a manuscript review.

The last couple of manuscripts I’ve reviewed pushed the textbook envelope a bit, which I am happy to see. The textbook publishers have so much power over how we teach and sometimes I am overwhelmed by the homogeneity I see in a publisher’s list of 50 composition textbooks. Stephen Krause has blogged extensively from the perspective of a prospective textbook author on why this is.

There are lots of ways for comp instructors to work around what textbook publishers offer. We can create our own materials, we can use textbooks as objects of critique, we can go the custom route. But those options may not be realistic for new instructors or those who teach in departments that mandate textbooks.

tags: academia  composition  teaching  textbook  

links: del.icio.us    technorati