next »

[blackbart]

Ok, so this thread's subject is perhaps hyperbolic, but not by much:

http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/cepe120123.htm

I'm ready to admit the potential pitfalls and shortcomings of electronic textbooks--but holy cow. I never knew that willful ignorance could be a premise for a syndicated column.

[larryc]

What an idiot.

[proftowanda]

Ok, so this thread's subject is perhaps hyperbolic, but not by much:

http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/cepe120123.htm

I'm ready to admit the potential pitfalls and shortcomings of electronic textbooks--but holy cow. I never knew that willful ignorance could be a premise for a syndicated column.

She writes that "rare is the educator with a deep understanding of a course's textbook.

"And it's even rarer for a teacher to give step-by-step textbook tours with the aim of getting students to understand how to really use them as a tool for reading about concepts in context, for conducting critical analysis, and as a reference."

And yet, even more rare is any evidence for these and other rather amazing assertions.  Not that these deal with the differences in technology, purportedly the point of the piece, which turns out to be yet more prof-bashing.

[polly_mer]

From the article:

I have about 30 textbooks lying around my house. Ranging from first-grade to post-graduate level, the oldest book is 45 years old and the newest was published in 2010.

Wow, 30 whole textbooks.  My, is that writer an expert on all textbooks at all levels or what?

[archman]

I think the point the author is trying to convey is that the e-textbook model that Apple is proposing is very, very different from the e-texts we've mostly seen before. We are used to seeing e-texts that are mostly just digitalized versions of traditional texts. Extra stuff is slapped onto it, but basically its an e-book. It requires little/no training to figure out how to use. It's totally intuitive.

The proposed Apple e-texts are more like a multimedia CMS. The structure of information flow would not be linear at all, but rather bunched up and packeted. You would have to learn how to navigate the Apple e-text in the same way as people learn how to navigate the internet. Or operate their iPhone.

For the latter, this style of e-text could very well require special training by faculty to operate. And just like all computer programs, we would be likely to experience drastic and confusing change as old software designs are replaced by "better" ones. I'm sure those of us who have switched smartphones or CMS's can attest to the extreme frustration of having to spend large amounts of time learning how to operate the latest flavour of technology.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

I don't really understand what her main point is, but I do agree that modern textbooks (at least in my field) are so decorated with tat -- color figures, historical sidebars, computer "explorations" --  that the content gets buried.  Older books were much better in this regard.  For example, this is what an elementary differential equations textbook should look like. - DvF

[blackbart]

The proposed Apple e-texts are more like a multimedia CMS. The structure of information flow would not be linear at all, but rather bunched up and packeted. You would have to learn how to navigate the Apple e-text in the same way as people learn how to navigate the internet. Or operate their iPhone.

While I didn't watch all of Apple's event the other day, my impression from summaries of it (like this one) don't seem to reflect the notion of the e-book as a CMS. (In fact, many of the comments under the Chronicle blog I just linked lament the fact that many of the features of a CMS--high-level interactivity, discussion groups, etc.--aren't included.) The product can embed multimedia, and seems to substantially lower the financial and tech-savviness bars for creating content. But it's still a static file created by one user for another to look at, and it's made using a piece of free, drag-and-drop-simple application. What's so dreadful about this learning curve?

If I'm wrong in my impressions, please correct me. But Cepeda's hand-wringing that some instructors ("scores" of them, in fact; where'd that come from? Why not "dozens" or "tens of thousands?") will need to learn a new technology seems pretty hysterical. Even if the technology is next-to-impossible to learn--and iPads are SO hard to figure out!--why does every instructor in America have to learn to use it? Our current model with printed textbooks doesn't require that every teacher be able to produce one all by herself; why would this new model do so? In other words, why can't I use another scholar's text instead of making my own?

[tee_bee]

My goodness, is that columnist clueless....

I never knew that willful ignorance could be a premise for a syndicated column.

You've not been reading the WaPo much lately, have you? ;-)

It's more than the premise for a column--it's a business model!

[archman]

While I didn't watch all of Apple's event the other day, my impression from summaries of it (like this one) don't seem to reflect the notion of the e-book as a CMS. (In fact, many of the comments under the Chronicle blog I just linked lament the fact that many of the features of a CMS--high-level interactivity, discussion groups, etc.--aren't included.) The product can embed multimedia, and seems to substantially lower the financial and tech-savviness bars for creating content. But it's still a static file created by one user for another to look at, and it's made using a piece of free, drag-and-drop-simple application. What's so dreadful about this learning curve?

If I'm wrong in my impressions, please correct me. But Cepeda's hand-wringing that some instructors ("scores" of them, in fact; where'd that come from? Why not "dozens" or "tens of thousands?") will need to learn a new technology seems pretty hysterical. Even if the technology is next-to-impossible to learn--and iPads are SO hard to figure out!--why does every instructor in America have to learn to use it? Our current model with printed textbooks doesn't require that every teacher be able to produce one all by herself; why would this new model do so? In other words, why can't I use another scholar's text instead of making my own?

The author is indeed correct. Learning new technology is a complete PITA. New or younger faculty are often naïve about this. They often have not had to endure years of multiple software “upgrades” that very often do little or anything to enhance teaching or student learning. Not that software developers should not try, but many of these updates are little more than marketing gimmicks to sell shiny things at overblown prices.
The main issue with technology in the classroom today is more about the instructor’s ability to *choose* how he/she wishes to teach. Some of us use lots of technology. Some of us use zero. Some of us use outdated or obscure technology. They are ALL effective techniques if they convey learning to the students. And yet, faculty are being increasingly pressured from most fronts that the only “effective” or “cost effective” way is to rely heavily or completely on the most current fads in technology. Why? Because shinies are cool, that’s why. You can just see the eyes of edu-wonks and admin-critters light up when a software marketer comes to campus pushing their trinkets. It’s like lambs to the slaughter.
Apples’s shinies are nicer. They also tend to be rather proprietary, and expensive. Most faculty would prefer the flexibility to choose how and what we teach with. One of the big fears some of us have (who have been down this path) is that Apple will turn out just like Blackboard. A big, incredibly expensive tool that is increasingly being forced down faculty throats, whether they need it or not.

[shrek]

I think a point she is trying to make is that newer textbooks are "dumbed down" so much that students don't get the opportunity to see models of a cogent, careful, in-depth argument. Thus, they won't be able to produce them. She may have a point. I think she's her own good example.

[blackbart]

Learning new technology is a complete PITA. New or younger faculty are often naïve about this. They often have not had to endure years of multiple software “upgrades” that very often do little or anything to enhance teaching or student learning. Not that software developers should not try, but many of these updates are little more than marketing gimmicks to sell shiny things at overblown prices.
The main issue with technology in the classroom today is more about the instructor’s ability to *choose* how he/she wishes to teach. Some of us use lots of technology. Some of us use zero. Some of us use outdated or obscure technology. They are ALL effective techniques if they convey learning to the students. And yet, faculty are being increasingly pressured from most fronts that the only “effective” or “cost effective” way is to rely heavily or completely on the most current fads in technology. Why? Because shinies are cool, that’s why. You can just see the eyes of edu-wonks and admin-critters light up when a software marketer comes to campus pushing their trinkets. It’s like lambs to the slaughter.
Apples’s shinies are nicer. They also tend to be rather proprietary, and expensive. Most faculty would prefer the flexibility to choose how and what we teach with. One of the big fears some of us have (who have been down this path) is that Apple will turn out just like Blackboard. A big, incredibly expensive tool that is increasingly being forced down faculty throats, whether they need it or not.

I think I agree with everything you've said here. I just don't see that the author of this article said any of the things you're saying.

[lohai0]

I don't really understand what her main point is, but I do agree that modern textbooks (at least in my field) are so decorated with tat -- color figures, historical sidebars, computer "explorations" --  that the content gets buried.  Older books were much better in this regard.  For example, this is what an elementary differential equations textbook should look like. - DvF

+1. I have a particularly loathsome ebook this semester for my math for liberal arts majors. There weren't even NUMBERS in the first chapter.

[spinnaker]

If publishers do their work well, eTextbooks will contain approximately the same portion of racketeering as printed ones.

[polly_mer]

Learning new technology is a complete PITA. New or younger faculty are often naïve about this. They often have not had to endure years of multiple software “upgrades” that very often do little or anything to enhance teaching or student learning. Not that software developers should not try, but many of these updates are little more than marketing gimmicks to sell shiny things at overblown prices.
The main issue with technology in the classroom today is more about the instructor’s ability to *choose* how he/she wishes to teach. Some of us use lots of technology. Some of us use zero. Some of us use outdated or obscure technology. They are ALL effective techniques if they convey learning to the students. And yet, faculty are being increasingly pressured from most fronts that the only “effective” or “cost effective” way is to rely heavily or completely on the most current fads in technology. Why? Because shinies are cool, that’s why. You can just see the eyes of edu-wonks and admin-critters light up when a software marketer comes to campus pushing their trinkets. It’s like lambs to the slaughter.
Apples’s shinies are nicer. They also tend to be rather proprietary, and expensive. Most faculty would prefer the flexibility to choose how and what we teach with. One of the big fears some of us have (who have been down this path) is that Apple will turn out just like Blackboard. A big, incredibly expensive tool that is increasingly being forced down faculty throats, whether they need it or not.

I think I agree with everything you've said here. I just don't see that the author of this article said any of the things you're saying.

Yep as well as this.

I think a point she is trying to make is that newer textbooks are "dumbed down" so much that students don't get the opportunity to see models of a cogent, careful, in-depth argument. Thus, they won't be able to produce them. She may have a point. I think she's her own good example.

One can make great arguments against etextbooks, especially multimedia ones.  However, this article did not do so.

[jackofallchem]

I see Apple's textbook site as a very promising addition.  Now, before the bashing begins, I am not one to adopt 'jiggling baloney' technology because everyone says its great.  I still lecture with chalk, but I have placed lots of reference materials on my webpages (and now Moodlerooms sites) for a long time.  I like technology when it makes things easier or it makes things better.  I really don't like reinventing the wheel.  In spite of this, I am guardedly optimistic about this new site.

The main reason I like the idea is because I hate the outrageous textbook (and current e-book) prices.  The textbook monopoly enforces these outrageous prices because there is no alternative to them.  E-books are produced by the publishers and made as expensive and inconvenient enough to make sure people stick with printed books ($75 for 6 months and then it disappears, really?).  The ability to self-publish has been around for years, but trying to find content is difficult (anyone used LuLu besides me?).  The self-publishing market has the same problem as shareware. Without a high-profile, central site, few people will find the content and purchase it.  With the app store, Apple has mostly fixed the shareware model.  Anyone can write a clever app, market it at the app store, get it in the hands of a lot of people, and get the profit from it.  I am hoping they can do the same thing for textbooks.  With the 70/30 profit sharing, I am hoping some high-profile authors decide to not renew their textbook contracts and instead write books for Apple's site.  It would be great if Peter Atkins would ditch his contract, rewrite his books, and release them for $50 each. 

I plan on writing a book this summer for one of my Fall classes.  I have taught the classes exclusively off of my notes and handouts for years (because there is no appropriate book) and I have wanted to write a textbook for it for some time.  One of the big stumbling blocks had been the publishing system.  This will never be a big seller, and putting everything into textbook form is a big pain with little return.  By putting it on Apple's site, in addition to  I hope that some other people might adopt the book and I might make some money off of it.  I also think everyone who has a book they could publish on the site should do so.  Every decent, reasonably-priced textbook on the site applies more pressure on the textbook publishers to lower their prices.  It probably won't happen, but I can always hope...

One caveat.  The Apple (free) software states that if you produce an e-book with their product, you can only publish it on Apple's web site.  I plan on writing mine in a word processor and importing it, eliminating the restriction.