If Education were a religion, textbooks would be the bible or quran of academic subjects. All textbooks focus on a special way of thinking about a special set of things. Chemistry textbooks focus on a special way of thinking about chemicals and how they interact. Psychology textbooks focus on a special way of thinking about human behaviour. Mathematics textbooks focus on a special way of thinking about numbers, shapes and figures. Physics textbooks teach a special way of thinking about mass and energy and their interactions. Biology textbooks teach a special way of thinking about living things. History textbooks (not historical novels) teach a special way of thinking about events in the past. This is true of all textbooks without exeption. To study textbooks properly, students must be able to identify the Big picture within it. That is, to see and identify the "scaffolding" that connects all the ideas within the textbook. This scaffolding or framework is the basic and fundamental concept of the subject. What is psychology? What is physics? What is economics? What is financial accounting? More often than not, students tend to read this introduction to the subject or course and erroneously memorize the definition, before hastily moving to other parts of the textbook. This is absolutely wrong! It simply reveals most students' misconception of what knowledge really is. As a student, you need to understand that your textbook (in any subject) is a repository of knowledge, in a derivative form. Do you know what that means? Imagine, for a moment, a newly manufactured motorcycles from Japan, disassembled for the purpose of shipping to Nigeria. That's how textbooks are. They contain "disassembled" knowledge (Knowledge in its analyzed form). Now, when those motorcycles arrive in Nigeria, they are again reassembled, ready for sale. In like manner, students must learn to "reassemble" the "disassembled" knowledge in their textbooks. Which means your chemistry textbook, for example, is a body of chemical facts and information that you must systematically construct and integrate into your mind in such a way that they form a "system" of meaning in your mind. This system of meaning is what I call "knowledge" in that subject. But, this systematic construction requires "building" skills. Here's how it works:
*As a knowledge builder, like all skilled builders, your first preoccupation is the foundation of your subject. In the introductory page or preface of most of your textbooks, it contains the definition and general overview of the subject: What is sociology? What is government?
Pay a close attention to this definition, with a view to conceptualizing the meaning it expresses. That is, instead of trying to memorize the definition, you are trying to understand what the definition is saying about the subject.
Please, understand that "meaning" is created by the human mind and encoded in a system of language. To get the meaning, you must decode the system of language within which it is embedded. It is interesting to know that a given "meaning" can be expressed in several ways, without sacrificing the core sense of the expression. For example:
1)Chief Edmond gave up the ghost yesterday.
2)Yesterday, Chief Edmond breathed his last
3) Chief Edmond, yesterday, was taken away by the cold hand of death
4)Chief Edmond's demise occured yesterday
5)Chief Edmond kicked the bucket yesterday.
Etc etc
Here are 5 different constructions (there could be more), expressing basically, the same meaning without distorting its core sense of "death".
The point I'm making is that the definitions in your textbooks are not sacrosanct and you can succeed in expressing its meaning in your own words without distortion. Of course I'm aware that every subject has technical terms or "concepts" peculiar to it and sometimes, some of these concepts are used to define the subject. Moreover, retaining these concepts in your definitions lend more credence to it. So, how do we sort this out? This is a legitimate question and we shall consider it in the next post. Thanks for stopping by.

...all this plenty talk yet the crux of the matter was still not mentioned.
Tufia!

HeirApparent:
If Education were a religion, textbooks would be the bible or quran of academic subjects. All textbooks focus on a special way of thinking about a special set of things. Chemistry textbooks focus on a special way of thinking about chemicals and how they interact. Psychology textbooks focus on a special way of thinking about human behaviour. Mathematics textbooks focus on a special way of thinking about numbers, shapes and figures. Physics textbooks teach a special way of thinking about mass and energy and their interactions. Biology textbooks teach a special way of thinking about living things. History textbooks (not historical novels) teach a special way of thinking about events in the past. This is true of all textbooks without exeption. To study textbooks properly, students must be able to identify the Big picture within it. That is, to see and identify the "scaffolding" that connects all the ideas within the textbook. This scaffolding or framework is the basic and fundamental concept of the subject. What is psychology? What is physics? What is economics? What is financial accounting? More often than not, students tend to read this introduction to the subject or course and erroneously memorize the definition, before hastily moving to other parts of the textbook. This is absolutely wrong! It simply reveals most students' misconception of what knowledge really is. As a student, you need to understand that your textbook (in any subject) is a repository of knowledge, in a derivative form. Do you know what that means? Imagine, for a moment, a newly manufactured motorcycles from Japan, disassembled for the purpose of shipping to Nigeria. That's how textbooks are. They contain "disassembled" knowledge (Knowledge in its analyzed form). Now, when those motorcycles arrive in Nigeria, they are again reassembled, ready for sale. In like manner, students must learn to "reassemble" the "disassembled" knowledge in their textbooks. Which means your chemistry textbook, for example, is a body of chemical facts and information that you must systematically construct and integrate into your mind in such a way that they form a "system" of meaning in your mind. This system of meaning is what I call "knowledge" in that subject. But, this systematic construction requires "building" skills. Here's how it works:
*As a knowledge builder, like all skilled builders, your first preoccupation is the foundation of your subject. In the introductory page or preface of most of your textbooks, it contains the definition and general overview of the subject: What is sociology? What is government?
Pay a close attention to this definition, with a view to conceptualizing the meaning it expresses. That is, instead of trying to memorize the definition, you are trying to understand what the definition is saying about the subject.
Please, understand that "meaning" is created by the human mind and encoded in a system of language. To get the meaning, you must decode the system of language within which it is embedded. It is interesting to know that a given "meaning" can be expressed in several ways, without sacrificing the core sense of the expression. For example:
1)Chief Edmond gave up the ghost yesterday.
2)Yesterday, Chief Edmond breathed his last
3) Chief Edmond, yesterday, was taken away by the cold hand of death
4)Chief Edmond's demise occured yesterday
5)Chief Edmond kicked the bucket yesterday.
Etc etc
Here are 5 different constructions (there could be more), expressing basically, the same meaning without distorting its core sense of "death".
The point I'm making is that the definitions in your textbooks are not sacrosanct and you can succeed in expressing its meaning in your own words without distortion. Of course I'm aware that every subject has technical terms or "concepts" peculiar to it and sometimes, some of these concepts are used to define the subject. Moreover, retaining these concepts in your definitions lend more credence to it. So, how do we sort this out? This is a legitimate question and we shall consider it in the next post. Thanks for stopping by.

This is very nice; you are actually making a great point.
However, you should have included the second part here.

Please you can still do it now.

Again, if you wouldn't mind, you can edit the text and insert distinct paragraphs to increase its readability.

Thanks for your anticipated understanding.

okwabayi:
...all this plenty talk yet the crux of the matter was still not mentioned.
Tufia!

Don't be in a haste, and forget that every work has a background, an objective and an introduction.
Therefore, knowing how to convey his message is the writer's judgement.

Even if there are flaws to the process adopted, I expected to see a constructive, not destructive, criticism.