Like most teachers, I have a tense relationship with textbooks: too much of one thing, not enough of another; too old, or updated annually; too hard to read, or too simplistic; boring or sensationalistic or, worse, trying to be student-friendly and failing; etc. Still, they are pedagogically useful, as long as they’re not actually harmful. In most of my classes, I use a survey text: ideally, it provides a foundation of basic information, frees me from having to explain everything in lecture. Basic stuff.<\/p>\n
But in my Japanese history classes, I’ve been getting away from them. When I offered my Early Japan to 1600 course in 2003, I used Hane’s Premodern Japan<\/i>. I didn’t like it, though: I’ve always thought Hane’s coverage of issues was quirky, and his politics a bit obvious. When I offered it again in 2004, I dispensed with Hane and used the Encyclopedia Britannica Online for basic narrative background. Maybe it was too early: students just didn’t spend enough time online, or something, and very few of them kept up with it or could make connections between that and the readings. In 2007, I gave up on that, too, and went textbook-free, though I was using Lu’s Japan: A Documentary History<\/i> which had a lot of good background in it. Mostly, though, I focused on the sources, using the questions raised by the readings to direct my lectures. I thought it was a neat bit of modern pedagogy, almost constructivist: students hated it.1<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n So I’m reconsidering the Early Japan course now. First of all, I’m shifting the chronology a bit: going up to 1700.2<\/a><\/sup> I still like Lu’s documents, supplemented with literature, for the main event readings.3<\/a><\/sup> But I think a good textbook might be worthwhile. That’s the problem: a good<\/i> textbook.<\/p>\n At the moment, I think I’m actually leaning towards the last option — Varley or Walthall — but I’m curious to know if anyone out there has any thoughts.<\/p>\n The same method actually worked quite well in my Japanese Women’s History course. More than once. Go figure. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li> I’m actually giving up on the three-course sequence. I like it, and it makes great historiographical sense. But students never seemed to figure out what was going on in the middle course (Qing or Tokugawa-Meiji) and I think you really need a much larger student body than I’m ever going to have to work with for these courses to actually draw enough audience. I’m not<\/i> going to the 19c contact=modernity model, though. I don’t think I could stomach it at this point. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>\n