Tom Liam Lynch :: New Literacies, New Literatures » textbooks

Top 12 Priciest Textbooks

tomliamlynch — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 03:27:04 +0000

In her piece on college textbook costs, MoneyWatch’s Lynn O’Shaughnessy not only lists a $1,215 communications encyclopedia, but also adds this quick insight:

One reasons why more students don’t turn to the Internet for cheap college textbooks is because many college bookstores, which are more expensive, don’t release the names of required college textbooks for classes until the last minute. To get the cheapest textbooks possible, contact professors this summer so you’ll have plenty of time to find the best textbook deals.

As I’ve described elsewhere, this might be another reason to work toward students writing their own textbooks with the teacher’s expert guidance. Certainly in this age of free and shareable media, these kinds of prices will remain a distant superlative.

Read the whole article here.

Why Teachers Should Let Students Write Textbooks

tomliamlynch — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 01:09:24 +0000

I came across this piece recently about the rise of digital textbooks. In it, two experts on the topic take questions in a chat setting. For instance:

Moderator: Katie Ash: Brian – do you want to go into a bit more detail about what exactly is going on in California, and what the different phases are?
Brian Bridges: @Katie. digital textbooks can be as simple as an electronic version of a print book, which is exactly what we’re reviewing right now. College professors and CK-12 have created a number of excellent books which can be printed out or can be read on devices. Digital books can also be web sites or interactive.
Neeru Khosla: @Caryn. Digital Textbooks is not just text, but it is next generation textbooks leveraging technology to make content available in various formats
Brian Bridges: Phase One of the Free Digital Textbook Initiative focused on downloadable PDF textbooks in math and science.
Neeru Khosla: including print on paper, as well as on web and mobile devices

Granted, this is “phase one” of the digitization of textbooks. Still, I’m left asking myself: why are the adults still the ones writing textbooks here? It’s a fair inference from the whole transcript that adults remain in the role of expert. But, why? Wouldn’t students learn mountains of knowledge and skills if their only task for the year was to write a textbook for other students on, say, an introduction to chemistry or English literature? They could then share it with other students and schools and update it collaboratively. For free. The role of the teacher, then, is that of editor: verify accuracy, project manage, and stay out of the way when needed to.

That’s exactly what students at one NYC school did a couple years ago when they created a rap album review for the NYS chemistry Regents exam. They rapped a review and the teacher made sure the right topics were covered and that the information was clearly and accurately conveyed. Then she got out of the way.

I am re-reading a book by education professor Sheridan Blau about teaching literature. He describes a profound realization he had four decades ago: the work he did assembling content to teach his students was precisely the work the students themselves needed to be doing. And, they couldn’t ever do that work because Professor Blau would walk in to his classes prepared to teach what he had learned. The paradox is this: so long as adults prepare the content for students, students can’t prepare it for themselves. It is the preparation of content–or, the curation, perhaps–that effects learning.

I do indeed think that the textbook industry is undergoing a major transformation. Between online textbooks, the influx of devices like the iPad, and the surge in Apps for sale, there is little direction for this to go but up. But, transformations in technology do not mean transformations in pedagogy. A transformation in pedagogy would have students writing the textbooks for other students, sharing those online, and even voting on which ones were most effective. That would be transformative. Downloading PDFs of adults’ own learning of the content? Hardly.

The “Flexible” Folly

tomliamlynch — Sat, 29 May 2010 02:43:08 +0000

Last week I posted about how ineffective the Convenience Argument is in defending e-learning: emphasizing that students-can-learn-anytime-from-any where while ignoring other crucial aspects of learning, like content quality, sells short the possibilities of online learning. Nevertheless, here it is again. This time, in Education Week, it marauds under the guise of Flexibility:

Just as the model of blended learning is pulling the worlds of virtual and brick-and-mortar schools together, new theories within virtual learning are bridging the divide between synchronous and asynchronous instructional methods.

Online educators say they once debated whether to deliver courses synchronously, by allowing access to instruction during a given time, or asynchronously, by allowing access anytime and anywhere. Now, they are designing approaches that meld both methods.

“The online model is really designed to be flexible for the individual student,” said Pam Birtolo, the chief learning officer of the Orlando-based Florida Virtual School, or FLVS, which is seen as a trendsetter in virtual education. “I don’t know that you can separate the two anymore.”

It took three paragraphs to get there, but there it is: really designed to be flexible for the individual student. Flexible and individual. That might be true (but, it also hinges on how you define “flexible”). What concerns me more is how rhetorical words like “flexible” and “convenience” are used. It’s a sales pitch.

Show me flexibility and convenience in a curricular context, with rigorous content that pushes students to make meaning. Then, you’ve got me.

Online models really designed to be flexible for individual students? Not interested.

New York City and Textbooks

tomliamlynch — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:13:14 +0000

A few days ago, I shared that I was beginning a study of 19th century textbooks to compare them to 21st century online courses, both in teaching literature. It was with this topic in mind that two pieces jumped out at me: one new, and one old.

The Times reported recently that the NYC DOE’s new practice of buying textbooks has left smaller vendors and publishers in the dust–or pulp, I suppose. The DOE argues that it is too large to try and manage the myriad vendors involved in purchasing and that in the end it costs the city more money because they aren’t getting the kinds of discounts they can get if they streamlined the process to only big companies. The result:

In its first year, city school officials say, the streamlined process is on target to save $18 million. But, much as large book retailers have pushed out independent sellers, some of the small local companies that used to deal directly with the schools say they may be forced out of business, at a cost, they contend, to students.

It’s hard to argue that a public school system should save that kind of money by simply sharpening operations.

What really interests me here is the relationship between the realities of educational business and knowledge. Textbooks, after all, are used to teach students some sampling of academic disciplines. What happens to the quality of academic content when some textbooks are admitted into the schools market and some not? There is a necessary relationship between finances and knowledge in this instance. This relationship is nothing new, historically.

In 1871, this cartoon ran in Harper’s Weekly:

It shows the infamous Boss Tweed and his accomplices launching the city’s school textbooks out the window and replacing them with others. The back story here is that the books being defenestrated are published by Harper’s–owner of Harper’s Weekly, in which Thomas Nast famously used his political cartoons (like this one) to draw public attention to the embezzling of the Tweed Ring–and the textbooks the rotund Tweed is replacing Harper’s with are those of his own publishing company or others in his circle of influence.

Then, as now, there is a question to be asked: what is the relationship between the politics and business of schooling–which are necessary, I’d argue–and the quality of disciplinary content offered to students? There is a tension, at least 150 years old, between economy and epistemology.

19th Century Textbooks vs. 21st Century Online Courses

tomliamlynch — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 00:40:17 +0000

Over the next few weeks, I’ll be beginning to put a hypothesis to the test. We often hear that our current schools are stuck using 19th century models of teaching and learning, that the 21st century student must be prepared for a new globalized economy. I myself have nodded my head to these claims. I might even have made them. And I might make them again. Before I do, however, I’d like to put them to a test.

What if I closely read and analyzed 19th century textbooks for teaching literature? Then, what if I conducted a similarly rigorous content analysis of popular online content companies who provide English literature content to schools? What would be new–or innovative, rigorous, 21st century–and what not?

My suspicion is that the 19th century textbooks and the 21st century online courses will prove to be remarkably similar. I’m open, though, to the contrary.

Are there other questions I’m missing? What might you yourself expect to see in such a comparison?

E-readers Come, Textbooks Go

tomliamlynch — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:12:02 +0000

Kindle nothing. The headlines are all about e-readers and textbooks are poised to go the way of the dodo. I’m not sure who this is new to, though. All the major textbook companies have been going digital for years now. Sony had an e-reader well before the Kindle. Students have seen this coming, clearly, because many of them never bothered to get familiar with textbooks anyway!

The only people this seems to be news to are the schools.