First- and Second-Year Textbooks: Which Ones We Use and How

Abstract

This study arose from the desire of our small German division (four full-time faculty) to explore new textbooks for our firstand second-year courses. We examined a number of available materials and consulted published advice without arriving at a consensus replacement. Although agreeing on the shortcomings of the books adopted several editions ago, we failed to discover any obviously superior alternatives that would suit a variety of teaching styles and philosophies. The decision to change has been postponed while we remain on the look-out. Prompted by the inconclusiveness of this search, I decided to poll colleagues nationwide to learn what they think about their teaching materials. During the winter of 1998-99, I1 sent out 400 questionnaires to faculty in post-secondary institutions in the United States. The addresses came from various sources: personal acquaintances, AATG-ACTFL conference programs, and the annual September PMLA directory of institutions. The mailings yielded 127 usable responses. In spite of this modest number, their statements appear to possess representative value. They come from 42 states including Hawaii and Alaska, from a range of private and public, small and big, prestigious and open-enrollment institutions including community colleges and research universities. This diversity suggests that the replying German faculty constitute a representative cross-section of our profession. The first portion of this report will discuss the responses to questions 1-13, focusing first on the first-year textbooks and then on second-year materials. In the following, I cite groups of questions from the survey and discuss the responses for each group. Both levels are referred to in the comments on question 14. My concluding remarks offer some additional observations and suggestions.