The improvement of the textbook has been an interest for many years. Hence, when I locate an article on the topic I must curb my reaction which is often that the article offers ideas that seem novel but actually are not.
Here is a recent article from Medium on new ideas for the industry. My comments will make more sense if you first read “Tomorrow’s Textbooks”.
Here are my initial negative reactions:
1) The iBook from author does indeed offer flexibility in the use of multimedia that many think will improve the learner experience. As an example of a more innovative format, I would say I agree. However, until and unless Apple creates a product that is cross platform the iBook will not move the market forward. Few profs would knowingly require a book that also requires a certain type of hardware. The iBook is more likely to be influential in the K12 market as schools may provide iPads to all student.
2) The notion that students will learn on their phones has a surface appeal. Most students have a phone and most use them heavily. However, my challenge to the proponents would be this. How many books have you read on your phone? I can say I have read several just to evaluate the experience. It is a stretch to say extended reading on a small screen is an equivalent experience when what we are searching for are improvements. Maybe a phablet. I also think the focus on phones runs contrary to some of the other recommendations regarding learning content.
3) My area of research for quite a few years involved personalizing the reading experience. What I did as research seems similar to one of the final areas of development identified in the Medium article. The article describes the use of analytics embedded in the learning resource to help the learner make better decisions. “Computer control” in computer based instruction has been around for a long time, but seldom applied at scale to textbooks. My personal interest was in the use of diagnostic quizzing to encourage review of poorly understood content. I was interested in metacognition and what technology had to offer to those with poor metacognitive skills. The frustrating (and interesting) thing about this work turned out to be that those students with less capable metacognitive skills also turned out to be less responsive to suggestions for what they should review specific content (rereading could be tracked). Instead of “don’t know and don’t know you don’t know” it seemed to also be “don’t know and don’t care”. It was about this time in my research career that I reached the age of 65 and retired.
As I suggest in my initial comments, I think a focus on “learning materials” deserves more attention. I am encouraged by interesting ideas even when I am a doubter. I am more concerned with the textbook industry because I see the large commercial sources retarding the process of improvement. I do not see traditional companies as being creative or flexible enough to generate change. If I were to complain about profs, I would focus less on their insensitivity to cost issues and more on their lack of willingness to explore alternatives to the traditional book. Perhaps instructor evaluations should include items related to the learning resources that have been assigned.