Publishers studying the effectiveness of their latest interactive e-textbooks are finding that the biggest challenge is getting professors to use the new features of the digital texts.
“On the instructor side, that’s where the inertia is,” says Jay Chakrapani, McGraw-Hill’s digital general manager for higher education. “That’s the biggest challenge that we’re all facing.”
Another publisher, John Wiley and Sons, commissioned a study in 2009 of the use of its WileyPLUS online learning tools by the University of Tennessee’s Institute for Assessment and Evaluation of nearly 500 students at 11 two-year and four-year colleges.
Instructors selected for participation all had at least two years of experience with the program, says Petra Steriti, Wiley’s manager for market research, but instructor use varied widely. “Not all instructors make students fully aware of what’s available,” she says.
Wiley plans to offer more tutorials to give professors a better understanding of the capabilities of the system, which can be used to quiz students on reading material and provide instant feedback.
Students who used the Wiley software had final scores that were seven percent higher than those of comparable students who didn’t use the software, the study found.
Students who started with the least subject knowledge and students at two-year colleges saw the greatest improvement when using the program.
Ms. Steriti says that WileyPLUS helps by giving students with more-basic learning skills additional practice material beyond the textbook that they would be less likely to seek out on their own. “It provides a roadmap for learning,” she says.
Albert N. Greco, a professor at Fordham University’s Graduate School of Business who studies the academic publishing industry, says Wiley’s findings are positive for the publisher, but he says they raise questions about the ability of WileyPLUS to help the strongest students.
“There’s probably going to be a need for more revisions,” he says. “It may not be helping as many students as they want to.”
At McGraw-Hill, Mr. Chakrapani says its online learning platform, Connect, is adaptive, which means that it can be customized for students at different levels and helps students determine what they do and do not know about a particular topic.
Case studies commissioned by McGraw-Hill showed improvement among students using Connect and showed that student performance improved the more students used the program.
Pearson Education-commissioned studies for its MyLab and Mastering programs also showed student improvement.
17 Responses to Publishers Struggle to Get Professors to Use Latest E-Textbook Features
edrand - February 11, 2011 at 8:01 am
On the surface it sounds impressive that software can improve a student’s grades. What publishers are remiss to show is that most any second exposure to the content will improve a student’s grades.
Come on, publisher’s – keep it scientific.
Ed
edrand - February 11, 2011 at 8:02 am
strike the quote:
Come on, publishers, keep it scientific.
:)
kdecay - February 11, 2011 at 8:10 am
So far so good. Now the Chronicle needs to commission a companion piece entitled “Professors struggle to get publishers to stop pitching expensive and unnecessary add-ons and focus on cheaper, more interesting textbooks”
hkacpa - February 11, 2011 at 8:33 am
I have used online homework systems and E-books with great success in my accounting classes since Spring 2008.
If we want to keep relevant in the “new world” our graduates will enter, it is time for change.
I have been moving to paperless since 1997 and only finally become completely paperless after adding the online features of my textbooks.
There are a lot of web-based resources out there that are free. For links to the sites I use, go to: http://aandaupdate.com/technology-in-the-classroom/scaae-meeting-february-18-19-2011-rock-hill-sc/
Kyle
cfurchner - February 11, 2011 at 8:36 am
I would be more inclined to use publishers’ add-ons if I didn’t need to spend so much time dealing with errors in them. The errors I’ve seen have ranged from miscoded answers in multiple choice quizzes to errors in explanations in some of the self-paced materials to windows that wouldn’t open or froze on a rather standard Windows installation. Their overall quality was substantially lower than the textbooks. [In fairness, I have not examined McGraw-Hill or Wiley materials.]
kdecay – RIGHT ON!
professor01 - February 11, 2011 at 9:54 am
Interesting approach. Blame the customer for lousy online supplementary sites that don’t take advantage of technology, that are outdated, etc. If publishers really want instructors to use the associated online materials, then spend some $$ and make them better. It’s really as simple as giving instructors a good reason to use those online materials.
smencil - February 11, 2011 at 10:53 am
I don’t like having to do the technical assistance to get students to be able to use the online materials. It is easier to give them quizzes that I photocopy or upload pdfs to the course management system, so I know they have access to the materials.
Also, using these type of materials that only come with new books mean students can’t buy used books, and so student will complain.
earthscienceprof - February 11, 2011 at 11:05 am
I’ve taught oceanography for many years. The quizzes supplied as extras are generally terrible, and focus on memorization rather than understanding. I suspect that more teachers would use them if the quality was better. Also, I’ve been asked by publishers to provide quiz questions for textbooks. The pay is so low that my time is essentially a donation. So, I understand teacher reluctance to use that material.
11272784 - February 11, 2011 at 11:08 am
Three problems here: first, the frequent errors in the evaluation material; second, a very valid question of whether the instructor wants to evaluate performance in the same way the quizzes are designed to; and finally, whether instructors have time and interest in using them. Many faculty members would rather use their own evaluations rather than figure out the ins and outs of something provided to them which may not be of great value to them.
cwinton - February 11, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Given the cost of getting this kind of material right, it is not surprising that it is error prone and of dubious quality, basically window dressing to promote sales. I remember the absolutely horrible computer “test banks” provided with low level books some years ago, which produced multiple choice tests laced with trite questions and “correct” answers that often were at odds with the material in the text. Publishers and users alike need to remember the lesson learned by the software industry: any significant change in software has at least a 50% chance of introducing a significant error somewhere else.
crazyfrog - February 11, 2011 at 6:46 pm
I don’t want to use the online bells and whistles. Period. I have better things to do than evaluate their quality, figure out how to use them, train students to use them, etc. What do I have better to do? Develop rigorous lessons and assessment tools that are individualized to my course and students. Publishers are so full of themselves thinking that they know what we instructors need to make our classes better and “technologically advanced for the new learner.” It’s such B.S.
kdecay above sums it up nicely.
jchakra - February 11, 2011 at 9:21 pm
As one of the publishers referenced in this piece, I say you are all absolutely right. You
deserve to have well designed, easy to use software that just works. Works for your students
by helping them master the material, works for you by freeing up your time, and works by being
stable, reliable and error-free so you don’t have to be tech support.
My quote on “inertia” is the inertia of historically having to deal with educational software that doesn’t work.
We owe you software that works. And we are committed to doing that.
-Jay Chakrapani, GM Digital Products, McGraw-Hill Higher Education
eliz6839 - February 11, 2011 at 11:59 pm
Jay Chakrapani misses the point. At least in my field, every single one of the textbooks on offer is so boring, it’s deadly. The students are bored, and I’m bored. Using more of the potted material and software that we’re being charged fortunes for doesn’t liven things up, it makes them even more deadly dull.
The technological bells and whistles don’t liven the publisher’s material up much. Really, given how technologically sophisticated college freshmen are, McGraw-Hill isn’t going to impress them unless it partners with DreamWorks.
So, like most faculty, I’m spending my time trying to find supplemental reading and lecture material that makes the concepts in the texts relevant and interesting. Because I create some of my own content, the test banks, etc. are no longer of any use. And honestly, I’ve come to deeply resent the fact that my students are forced to pay for this stuff.
Stop with the websites and the test banks and all the other add-ons. Give us lively, interesting, readable texts instead!!
smwoodson - February 12, 2011 at 12:52 am
Might it not work better to begin by talking to professors about what they do when they teach? and ask them where the challenges lie? Then you build something that addresses those needs. You make the tool fit the work not vice versa.
jchakra - February 12, 2011 at 12:37 pm
@smwoodson I wholeheartedly agree. Before we wrote a line of code for McGraw-Hill Connect, we conducted 1000s of hours of observational research. You can read more about it here: http://bit.ly/f9AZSm. Teams of our engineers, designers and product managers sat with instructors and students in classrooms and dorm rooms to really internalize your challenges. We then did our best to invent capabilities and learning experiences that helped address those challenges.
We aren’t 100% there. But we are continually and rapidly improving our products based on you and your colleagues feedback.
mkt42 - June 25, 2012 at 11:28 am
I’m also reminded of the plot of “Revenge of the Nerds”, when the fraternity of the Big Men on Campus (or whatever they’re called nowadays) accidentally burned down their frat house (and promptly grabbed the nerds’ house).
katisumas - June 25, 2012 at 1:01 pm
…and by the firemen who suffered injuries….