Anonymous wrote:Is it only AP classes that have text books? My elementary school kids don’t know what text books are. I had to explain it to them. As they get older, it makes studying really hard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teens rarely retain info from actual history textbooks anyway. Textbooks are not the best way to teach about social studies anyway.

Not talking about AP. Most of those kids are motivated.

Textbooks are one of the methods used to teach "social studies" effectively. Solely using primary sources would not be a good method either. Kids lack context information and an overall view of events when you only dive into specific primary sources (which represent just one or a few people's view of an event).

For example, it is very common in history classrooms to do a debate on whether dropping the atomic bomb was justified. This involves reading sources about that event and its aftermath. But, the kids (who usually say it wasn't justified) have absolutely no background knowledge on Japanese imperialism in Asia and its treatment of conquered people, treatment of POWs (Bataan Death March, etc.), Japanese military tactics and the likelihood of surrender, the implications of Stalin invading Japan, and even just the background of WWII (their learning is often limited to Japanese internment camps, the Holocaust and "the Homefront" with Victory Gardens), etc. So basically, they are swooping in unfamiliar with the knowledge and attitudes that went into making the original decision. History is complicated and using just a few snapshot documents ALSO is not the best way to teach history.

Did they know that Japan try to surrender 5 times before the bomb was dropped?

https://archive.org/details/per_chicago-daily-tribune_1945-08-19_104_33

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here - I am answering my own question. I met the teacher and discovered that there is indeed a book - electronic, but still, a kind of book. The random texts from last week were just to get kids used to some of the exercises they would be doing, and because it takes some time to teach kids how to use the book and get everyone logged in.

I figured this was the case. People make so many assumptions about what is going on in class these days, and the theme is usually that teachers don’t know what they are doing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teens rarely retain info from actual history textbooks anyway. Textbooks are not the best way to teach about social studies anyway.

Not talking about AP. Most of those kids are motivated.

Textbooks are one of the methods used to teach "social studies" effectively. Solely using primary sources would not be a good method either. Kids lack context information and an overall view of events when you only dive into specific primary sources (which represent just one or a few people's view of an event).

For example, it is very common in history classrooms to do a debate on whether dropping the atomic bomb was justified. This involves reading sources about that event and its aftermath. But, the kids (who usually say it wasn't justified) have absolutely no background knowledge on Japanese imperialism in Asia and its treatment of conquered people, treatment of POWs (Bataan Death March, etc.), Japanese military tactics and the likelihood of surrender, the implications of Stalin invading Japan, and even just the background of WWII (their learning is often limited to Japanese internment camps, the Holocaust and "the Homefront" with Victory Gardens), etc. So basically, they are swooping in unfamiliar with the knowledge and attitudes that went into making the original decision. History is complicated and using just a few snapshot documents ALSO is not the best way to teach history.

Did they know that Japan try to surrender 5 times before the bomb was dropped?

https://archive.org/details/per_chicago-daily-tribune_1945-08-19_104_33

Relevance to this thread? And again, one source.

History is complicates

Also in Japan, there is very different history than US history for ww2

Japan peace overtures to a neutral (at the time) Russia is well known in historical source

Anonymous wrote:OP here - I am answering my own question. I met the teacher and discovered that there is indeed a book - electronic, but still, a kind of book. The random texts from last week were just to get kids used to some of the exercises they would be doing, and because it takes some time to teach kids how to use the book and get everyone logged in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teens rarely retain info from actual history textbooks anyway. Textbooks are not the best way to teach about social studies anyway.

Not talking about AP. Most of those kids are motivated.

Textbooks are one of the methods used to teach "social studies" effectively. Solely using primary sources would not be a good method either. Kids lack context information and an overall view of events when you only dive into specific primary sources (which represent just one or a few people's view of an event).

For example, it is very common in history classrooms to do a debate on whether dropping the atomic bomb was justified. This involves reading sources about that event and its aftermath. But, the kids (who usually say it wasn't justified) have absolutely no background knowledge on Japanese imperialism in Asia and its treatment of conquered people, treatment of POWs (Bataan Death March, etc.), Japanese military tactics and the likelihood of surrender, the implications of Stalin invading Japan, and even just the background of WWII (their learning is often limited to Japanese internment camps, the Holocaust and "the Homefront" with Victory Gardens), etc. So basically, they are swooping in unfamiliar with the knowledge and attitudes that went into making the original decision. History is complicated and using just a few snapshot documents ALSO is not the best way to teach history.

Did they know that Japan try to surrender 5 times before the bomb was dropped?

https://archive.org/details/per_chicago-daily-tribune_1945-08-19_104_33

Relevance to this thread? And again, one source.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teens rarely retain info from actual history textbooks anyway. Textbooks are not the best way to teach about social studies anyway.

Not talking about AP. Most of those kids are motivated.

Textbooks are one of the methods used to teach "social studies" effectively. Solely using primary sources would not be a good method either. Kids lack context information and an overall view of events when you only dive into specific primary sources (which represent just one or a few people's view of an event).

For example, it is very common in history classrooms to do a debate on whether dropping the atomic bomb was justified. This involves reading sources about that event and its aftermath. But, the kids (who usually say it wasn't justified) have absolutely no background knowledge on Japanese imperialism in Asia and its treatment of conquered people, treatment of POWs (Bataan Death March, etc.), Japanese military tactics and the likelihood of surrender, the implications of Stalin invading Japan, and even just the background of WWII (their learning is often limited to Japanese internment camps, the Holocaust and "the Homefront" with Victory Gardens), etc. So basically, they are swooping in unfamiliar with the knowledge and attitudes that went into making the original decision. History is complicated and using just a few snapshot documents ALSO is not the best way to teach history.

Did they know that Japan try to surrender 5 times before the bomb was dropped?

https://archive.org/details/per_chicago-daily-tribune_1945-08-19_104_33

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teens rarely retain info from actual history textbooks anyway. Textbooks are not the best way to teach about social studies anyway.

Not talking about AP. Most of those kids are motivated.

Textbooks are one of the methods used to teach "social studies" effectively. Solely using primary sources would not be a good method either. Kids lack context information and an overall view of events when you only dive into specific primary sources (which represent just one or a few people's view of an event).

For example, it is very common in history classrooms to do a debate on whether dropping the atomic bomb was justified. This involves reading sources about that event and its aftermath. But, the kids (who usually say it wasn't justified) have absolutely no background knowledge on Japanese imperialism in Asia and its treatment of conquered people, treatment of POWs (Bataan Death March, etc.), Japanese military tactics and the likelihood of surrender, the implications of Stalin invading Japan, and even just the background of WWII (their learning is often limited to Japanese internment camps, the Holocaust and "the Homefront" with Victory Gardens), etc. So basically, they are swooping in unfamiliar with the knowledge and attitudes that went into making the original decision. History is complicated and using just a few snapshot documents ALSO is not the best way to teach history.

Anonymous wrote:Teens rarely retain info from actual history textbooks anyway. Textbooks are not the best way to teach about social studies anyway.

Not talking about AP. Most of those kids are motivated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid in AP world history came home with an enormous textbook.

What textbook?

AP world and most of the AP classes use textbooks.

AP classes are required by their agreement with the College Board to have a college level textbook available. Test prep and AMSCO books do not satisfy the requirement. If your school does not provide a textbook for an AP class, you can report them to the College Board.

What's wrong with the AMSCO AP books?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here - I am answering my own question. I met the teacher and discovered that there is indeed a book - electronic, but still, a kind of book. The random texts from last week were just to get kids used to some of the exercises they would be doing, and because it takes some time to teach kids how to use the book and get everyone logged in.

Did you ask the teacher if the school can get you a hard copy? Many times they have them for those who ask, just not for everyone in the class.

My child prefers the hard copy version of the history text because she got in the habit of reading on the entire topic prior to the lesson being taught in class, and finds it more efficient to do so than when using the e-text.

My little genz-er actually prefers the electronic book.

Not surprised. But they aren't retaining much from it. If that matters.