Month: April 2015

This is a book recommendation. I read a variety of content because I believe my personal creativity works best when I feed it ideas. This might be described as reasoning by analogy, but I believe the focused approach of so many academics suffers from an influx of new, but existing perspectives.

I encourage those interested in generating instructional content to consider some of the ideas advanced by Jeff Jarvis on the news and the business of selling the news. Specifically, I recommend Geeks Bearing Gifts. If you are unwilling to spring for the $10 demanded by Amazon, Jarvis is also providing the same content as Buzzmachine posts. As I write this, he has made it to the latter chapters so you could read most of the book for free.

I want to highlight two ideas from the book which I think offer some interesting ideas for the educational publishing industry. There is much more to be had, but these are two ideas that immediately caught my attention.

Idea 1 – the article is not the only way to imagine the unit of distribution

I have long believed that a textbook has some specific limitations because it is offered as a single unit. Recognizing components would allow a number of limitations to be addressed (my analysis). Jarvis makes a similar case with the newspaper article. Most of us have a vague understanding of the format journalists often use to generate news articles. There is the initial summary, segments supporting and expanding this summary (quotes, background, deeper explanation), sources, etc. We probably learned somewhere that an article is originally written to gradually taper off should the editor have to shorten an article by cutting at the end. We may also be familiar with the issue of “burying the lead” in which an author misses what should have been the most important point and did not highlight it in the initial paragraph.

Jarvis does a nice job of pointing to experimental approaches related to the ideas he identifies. For example, he points to Circa News as a service built to use the elements of typical news articles more creatively. You can try Circa (optimized for reading content on your phone) and might want to review another of my posts on this service.

What insights might educational content providers gain? I think the idea of identifying the components in what we offer and possibly providing better ways to provide and develop these various components may be helpful.

Idea 2 – show me the money. How can professionals support their work?

Within the present reality of unlimited and often free online content, how can professional content providers and content organizations support their work? Clearly, the cost of textbooks has generated a lot of attention and scorn. Jarvis deals with the reality of business models throughout.

Here is one example of an idea I like. I would suggest I have had a related idea about educational content, but that is not the point here. Jarvis proposes that authors and readers represent a relationship that is not necessarily one directional. Relationships are a big thing in his book. He suggests one idea related to a more participatory approach I found intriguing. What if “readers” could buy down the cost of content in various ways (this is my interpretation and even if this is not what Jarvis intended I still like my spin)? This would obviously be more practical with a subscription model than a single purchase (a book). For example, a reader my buy down the cost by being willing to view ads (some free vs. paid services already use this approach). What if readers provide information (complete surveys) or even content (personal stories, examples) to reduce personal costs for the primary service? For example, I have proposed that practicing teachers might provide classroom examples as a way to supplement textbooks.

I know that making these ideas work would be a challenge. Implementation would not be that technically problematic, but it seems that it would be easy to game such systems without contributing much of value. Some type of evaluation would be necessary, expensive, and messy.

The Jarvis book has one major contribution I think is overlooked. When traditional models are obviously in decline, we should not assume that all is lost. New models that value quality will eventually be developed. The models in the book may not be the eventual successes, but it is reassuring to review ideas that exist and are interesting.

There may be comparable developments in the development of educational content. I just do not see traditional publishers investing much in R&D efforts. Perhaps someone will write something that will reassure me in the same way the Jarvis analysis brought me new insights into a different area of content generation.

The Atlantic recently carried an article entitled “Down with Textbooks” . Every time I enounter such an article I feel the need to respond. It is likely such pieces generate this reaction because a) I author a textbook and b) I used a textbook in most of the courses when I was teaching full time.

To be fair, the Atlantic article is about the teaching of history. I admit I did not enjoy history as a student and did find it boring. I have not tried to teach history and certainly would be poorly prepared to do so. I do know something about the teaching of history because of some grant work I did and I recognize that there are different schools of thought regarding the purpose of learning history. Clearly, students in early history courses do not experience history as historians experience history. History can be a great exercise in critical thinking requiring an explanation for historical events pieced together from the interpretation of multiple primary sources. This seems to be the position taken by the author of the Atlantic article. The history most of us experienced was an effort to familiarize ourselves with historical events. This is what some want. Some see a basic understanding of history as the basis for citizenship assuming a common understanding of our heritage. Some politicians push for this approach and others see this approach as a form of indoctrination. History may not be the best subject area to use as the basis for evaluating the contribution of a textbook.

I am not certain I accept the argument that textbooks are boring as a rationale for much of anything. What you or I find to be boring is likely a function of many factors. For example, I find what some consider inherently interesting experiences such as discussion/conversation to be extremely boring if either a) I want to experience what an expert has to say about the topic or b) I or the individuals I am to engage in a discussion with have only casual knowledge of a topic. I do not see interest as a global characteristic of method. When I can supply my own interest, I often prefer an efficient approach in the early stages of learning. When I must learn something, interested or not, I also prefer efficiency. For example, I have moved to a new state and now must retake the exam to acquire a new driver’s license. I want a resource that will prepare me for this requirement in the most efficient way possible. I do not require diversity of experience. I do not require entertainment. I want an efficient exposure to the information I am expected to understand.

I assume textbook authors have different perspectives on their work. My own perspective in writing a textbook used to prepare teachers to help students learn with technology has been to identify the range of themes important to consider and to explore these themes with a sensitivity to the complexity of these issues. By range of themes, I mean topics from coding to copyright. By complexity, I mean that there are often disagreements and multiple perspectives on many of these issues – e.g., constructivism vs direct instruction. To the extent that I understand complexities to be unresolved, I feel it is my responsibility as an author to use the research available to explain strengths and weaknesses.

The Atlantic article made a case for the value of multiple resources in learning. I would certainly agree. What I think I do as an author is to provide a general starting point true to issues and alternatives and assume the course instructor will use his/her expertise to explore some topics in depth. I believe learning is a function of breadth (context) and depth. I hope to free the instructor to provide the depth appropriate to the instructors own expertise and the individual needs of the students in a given course.

The notion of “flipping the classroom” has proven popular in recent years. This phrase likely means different things to different people. To me, it means use face to face time to do best what can be done in face to face time. A good textbook frees up face to face time for discussion, individual needs and interests, and the unique expertise of the instructor. I also think a second core, but typically unexamined idea in the flipping approach assumes the establishment of a basic framework or background on which depth of understanding is then built. Again, this is what I think a good textbook should try to provide.

One final point – I do not consider many popular books on educational topics are textbooks. This is not to dispute the value of such books. Most popular books take a focused approach and do not make the effort to examine the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives. Again, without a solid background what is proposed in such books can be very challenging to evaluate critically. I do not expect these books to carefully examine what others would argue are the limitations of what has been proposed, but I would expect such a critical analysis from a textbook.