Every once in a while you come across a video that is worth sharing. This is one of those, I think. Those who know me know of the near-infamous bad travel karma that I seem to experience. I have a lot of funny and unsual travel tales, but this is one that goes beyond my experiences. Not a normal posting for this blog -- but there is a connection. Think about how technology has lead to some very innovative and creative uses of media. How will this type of creativity and media eventually change the nature of course materials? What will students be creating in the future? There are a lot of interesting applications of video and media at the moment, but we are probably just at the beginning.
The following video has moments that are funny, others that are touching, but all-in-all cool. It ends up being an ad for T-Mobile-- but you would not know it until the very last couple of seconds when you see the sponsor once the video ends -- the message is that "life is for sharing." Have a great weekend and enjoy! (and one of these days I would love to see something like this happen live! I wonder how much work and practice it took for them to get this one down so well?)
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Friday, June 17, 2011
When technology trends (and textbooks) collide...
There have been a couple interesting studies out lately involving textbooks and tablets. A classic collision of technology trends as mobile devices and digital content converge among college students.
A few weeks ago we wrote about the study by the Pearson Foundation. Among some of the interesting quotes:
The article goes on to discuss the barriers to digital textbook adoption. Among top reasons they note lack of inventory, the cost of digital, and the need for truly media rich content. The first and last are on our list of factors. The second surprised me, as the physical print and distribution costs are not a substantive portion of current textbook cost -- so why should people expect the cost to be lower. Plus, the current cost of generating truly media rich content and integrating it in pedagogically proven ways can be quite high. Digital textbooks should probably cost more not less right now if we are just talking about costs and truly media rich versions. The costs for consumers are marginally lower currently as we look at "PDF equivalents" and publishers attempt to build market share for digital.
A few weeks ago we wrote about the study by the Pearson Foundation. Among some of the interesting quotes:
[W]hile 55 percent of students still prefer print over digital textbooks, among the 7 percent of students who own tablets devices like iPads, 73 percent prefer digital textbooks. With 70 percent of college students interested in owning a tablet, and 15 percent saying they plan to buy one in the next six months, the survey suggests that there may be a coming rise in the e-textbook market.
These findings are interesting on several points. First is the declining preference among students for print over digital -- dropping from 75% (widely found in a number of studies) down to 55% in the past 6 months. However, the preference of print over digital more than flips when you look at students with a tablet device -- with 73% of those students prefering digital to print.
Unless one wants to believe that this is just an abberation among early adopters, this week, a new study conducted at Abilene Christian University appeared in Campus Technology. Independent from the prior study, this study found similar preference for digital over print even among individuals exposed to a tablet for as little as three weeks. An interesting quote from this piece:
“After trying an iPad for a short period—about three weeks—three out of four college freshmen said they’d be willing to purchase an Apple iPad personally if at least half of the textbooks they used during their college career were available digitally.”
The article goes on to discuss the barriers to digital textbook adoption. Among top reasons they note lack of inventory, the cost of digital, and the need for truly media rich content. The first and last are on our list of factors. The second surprised me, as the physical print and distribution costs are not a substantive portion of current textbook cost -- so why should people expect the cost to be lower. Plus, the current cost of generating truly media rich content and integrating it in pedagogically proven ways can be quite high. Digital textbooks should probably cost more not less right now if we are just talking about costs and truly media rich versions. The costs for consumers are marginally lower currently as we look at "PDF equivalents" and publishers attempt to build market share for digital.
As we look at the inventory challenge, most textbooks currently available in digital are the large adoptions -- so mostly content oriented toward first- and second-year courses. If students start coming to campus with tablets in growing numbers, over a four-year period you could have more than half of all textbook content available digitally.
So what would that mean for the printed textbook in four years time -- i.e., 2015? What happens if tablet adoption follows patterns similar to iPod or smartphone adoption in recent years? (A reasonable projection, since most technologies are on accelerating adoption curves, and early projections say this technology is on a similar or faster trajectory than the identified counterparts). What if just half of students have a tablet device by 2015, and they acquire just half of all of their textbooks in digital format? That is 25% of course materials being sold digital right there.
Is there anyone credible out there who STILL does not think trends in digital content or mobile devices or technology in general does not matter in the textbook world?
Thursday, June 16, 2011
IBM: Typewriters to the Cloud
This week, IBM turned 100, and their website to commemorate the event has a number of interesting pieces of content.
From an innovation perspective, IBM has always been an interesting company. There are many things those of us who work in industries experiencing technology-based change can learn from IBM's history. One of those things is reinventing oneself. IBM has done an excellent job of reinventing itself as a company over the past 100 years as the times and technology have changed. Below is a video by the BBC which talks to this aspect of IBM's history in particular. My favorite quote from the video is:
A second video on IBM's history is also quite interesting. It is a bit longer (at 13 minutes) but provides a "100x100 view" of their history, by featuring one hundred people, who each present the IBM achievement recorded in the year they were born.
Happy 100th Birthday, IBM!
From an innovation perspective, IBM has always been an interesting company. There are many things those of us who work in industries experiencing technology-based change can learn from IBM's history. One of those things is reinventing oneself. IBM has done an excellent job of reinventing itself as a company over the past 100 years as the times and technology have changed. Below is a video by the BBC which talks to this aspect of IBM's history in particular. My favorite quote from the video is:
To stay ahead in the technology race IBM has had to accept that it has to give up on much of its past.Another interesting clip within the video that might interest some readers of this blog is a short piece on the "supermarket of the future."
A second video on IBM's history is also quite interesting. It is a bit longer (at 13 minutes) but provides a "100x100 view" of their history, by featuring one hundred people, who each present the IBM achievement recorded in the year they were born.
Happy 100th Birthday, IBM!
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Video for learning: Corrected
Sorry -- I accidently embedded the wrong video in the original posting. I have since edited that posting so that the correct video appears.
Video for learning
At the end of this post is Hans Rosling's health and wealth statistics video that has received a fair amount of attention. Not only is this a great video -- it provides a good platform to talk a little bit about the future of course materials from today's vantage point.
I remember an EDUCAUSE video by Richard Katz from 2006 on how technology could influence higher education. Part of that incorporated the idea of EDUtainment. Subsequently, I have occasionally heard discussions that explored the idea that "star faculty" could be broadcast online across many institutions -- creating economies of scale, and local faculty would facilitate discussion, activity, or provide local support and expertise. You find the "best of the best" to teach the "intro-level" courses in a consistent way via video or multimedia, and then faculty at each institution contribute upper level lectures or offerings on their areas of expertise. Other faculty provide educational support and guidance and the "local touch" which enhance and reinforce the educational experience and provide for 1-on-1 or group interaction in a way that much video and multimedia currently cannot.
Among the challenges here, however, is the cost -- and the appropriateness -- of using technology in learning. Creating the video below certainly required some financial support. Creating similar content for lots of different concepts will take time and far more resources, and not all content is suitable to this type of format. As in other domains, we must be cautious about using technology for technology's sake, and we must think about the most effective uses of technology in course materials. Odd argument to hear from a technology guy, I know.
In the short term, until technologies evolve that make creation of content like this even easier and lower cost, creating a large suite of educational content that is truly born digital will take time, effort, and resources -- implying that a large volume of digital course materials that go beyond the "pdf of the book" will likely take some time to really produce yet. Doubting that it will eventually arrive is probably not a safe bet.
I remember an EDUCAUSE video by Richard Katz from 2006 on how technology could influence higher education. Part of that incorporated the idea of EDUtainment. Subsequently, I have occasionally heard discussions that explored the idea that "star faculty" could be broadcast online across many institutions -- creating economies of scale, and local faculty would facilitate discussion, activity, or provide local support and expertise. You find the "best of the best" to teach the "intro-level" courses in a consistent way via video or multimedia, and then faculty at each institution contribute upper level lectures or offerings on their areas of expertise. Other faculty provide educational support and guidance and the "local touch" which enhance and reinforce the educational experience and provide for 1-on-1 or group interaction in a way that much video and multimedia currently cannot.
Among the challenges here, however, is the cost -- and the appropriateness -- of using technology in learning. Creating the video below certainly required some financial support. Creating similar content for lots of different concepts will take time and far more resources, and not all content is suitable to this type of format. As in other domains, we must be cautious about using technology for technology's sake, and we must think about the most effective uses of technology in course materials. Odd argument to hear from a technology guy, I know.
In the short term, until technologies evolve that make creation of content like this even easier and lower cost, creating a large suite of educational content that is truly born digital will take time, effort, and resources -- implying that a large volume of digital course materials that go beyond the "pdf of the book" will likely take some time to really produce yet. Doubting that it will eventually arrive is probably not a safe bet.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
OER infographic and accuracy of OER data
The Atlantic recently published a piece which included an interesting infographic that compared Open Source Textbooks to other textbook options. As with much of the media on open source textbooks these days, there is a fair amount of incorrect data being bandied about, which leads to some false conclusions about the benefits. Such items make for good teachable moments, though.
If you scroll past the infographic, you will find among the comments one from our government relation's director, Rich Hershman. Rich and I are both proponents of the open source movement, and together crafted a policy position for our Association's board. That position, in support of the OER/open textbook movement was adopted nearly three years ago and remains in effect. That aside, there is room for constructive criticism of the open textbook movement and a number of the claims used relative to the movement. I think Rich's comments do a great job of capturing some of these perspectives.
Here are Rich's comments from the posting:
It would be great to see the infographic updated with correct information, as such graphics can be useful tools for communicating complex data. OER can have a positive effect on education. However, if we fail to measure the effects accurately, we may come to false conclusions and reap some unintended consequences.
As one example, most college stores are independent non-profit businesses today, and even if they are part of one of the contract management chains, they return revenue or provide other services to the academic institution in most cases. Most revenue from course materials goes to support financial aid or student services. While improving textbook affordability via open source textbooks, educational affordabilty can also be affected, and we are hearing more anecdotal examples of this happening on campuses.
I believe that part of Rich's point is that in addition to the inaccuracies in the infographic, there is a larger set of economic implications here connected to textbooks and textbok affordability. The OER movement needs better and more accurate data on "total cost of ownership" at the student, institutional, governmental, and national levels. This would enable us to better support OER initiatives and find models that are true wins for students. A deeper conversation and investigation of the true costs associated with OER should occur -- otherwise we risk taking a positive innovation and turning it into a shell game with educational affordability at stake.
Short of this type of investigation, why not just take the billions of dollars going into developing open access textbooks and give it to the current textbook publishers to make their content free for the students with greatest need? Or use it to subsidize the top 20 percent of titles from publishers, or the top X percent of most widely used textbooks, making the current high quality products free to students rather spending money to reinvent an industry that already exists? Sure, this would have unintended consequences as well, but we might start with a higher bar and have an immediate affordabilty impact across the widest possible range of students.
My comment here is meant to be somewhat flippant or extreme -- the point being that we cannot throw money at OER and just expect that it will produce high quality, affordable results. There are reasons to support OER and the OER movement beyond affordability. The movement would be well served to make more of those arguments, and fact-check some of their current assumptions related to affordability.
If you scroll past the infographic, you will find among the comments one from our government relation's director, Rich Hershman. Rich and I are both proponents of the open source movement, and together crafted a policy position for our Association's board. That position, in support of the OER/open textbook movement was adopted nearly three years ago and remains in effect. That aside, there is room for constructive criticism of the open textbook movement and a number of the claims used relative to the movement. I think Rich's comments do a great job of capturing some of these perspectives.
Here are Rich's comments from the posting:
While this is an interesting graphic, I would question some of the facts it displays. The National Association of College Stores has been tracking the cost of textbooks and other course materials for years, and our data and that of others in some aspects are quite different.:
1.) According to actual student surveys, the average full time student spends between $600-$700 annually on course materials , not $900. This $600 to $700 includes purchasing new books, used books, rental, and ebooks. It does not factor in financial aid, tax credits, nor if students sell their textbooks back, all of which would further reduce the net costs -in some cases significantly. Student spending on college textbooks has actually been declining in recent years, according to at least two recent national surveys of students.
2.) The $184 average cost estimate of open source textbooks does not factor in the total costs of the content , since the open source textbook community now advocates for and and in some cases receives federal, state, and institutional subsidies (beyond student fees) in order to develop, update, maintain, and support such textbooks. Therefore, some of the costs of open source textbooks would be hidden from students, though they likely would pay for some of these costs indirectly. Also depending on how a fee would be established, if it was a mandatory school-wide fee as some have advocated, students from low-cost content subjects, like literature, would be forced to subsidize students taking higher cost science and math courses.
3.) Switching to open source textbooks would cost states and localities in states like California, Florida, Texas, Ohio, and Illinois hundreds of millions in lost sales tax revenue. This would likely be offset with further cuts to education funding, and result in higher tuition and fees. It would also reduce income tax and eliminate thousands of jobs and employment opportunities for students and recent graduates.
4.) The average price of new course materials, including textbooks, at colleges and universities in 2009-2010 was $62, not $171. Implying that the average cost of all new textbooks actually used in schools is $171 greatly misrepresents the potential savings as you look beyond single title examples and attempt to jump to claims of aggregate savings.
Open source textbooks are a valuable and an important development in the marketplace for courses materials. There are many reasons why institutions should support the development and experimentation of open source textbooks for academic reasons separate from the perceived cost-savings arguments. There are opportunities to make course materials more affordable through the adoption and use of open textbooks. However, the case for open source textbooks from an affordability perspective should be made with a complete understanding of all the direct and indirect costs and benefits to students. This info-graphic, cool as it, seems to fall short of this test.
It would be great to see the infographic updated with correct information, as such graphics can be useful tools for communicating complex data. OER can have a positive effect on education. However, if we fail to measure the effects accurately, we may come to false conclusions and reap some unintended consequences.
As one example, most college stores are independent non-profit businesses today, and even if they are part of one of the contract management chains, they return revenue or provide other services to the academic institution in most cases. Most revenue from course materials goes to support financial aid or student services. While improving textbook affordability via open source textbooks, educational affordabilty can also be affected, and we are hearing more anecdotal examples of this happening on campuses.
I believe that part of Rich's point is that in addition to the inaccuracies in the infographic, there is a larger set of economic implications here connected to textbooks and textbok affordability. The OER movement needs better and more accurate data on "total cost of ownership" at the student, institutional, governmental, and national levels. This would enable us to better support OER initiatives and find models that are true wins for students. A deeper conversation and investigation of the true costs associated with OER should occur -- otherwise we risk taking a positive innovation and turning it into a shell game with educational affordability at stake.
Short of this type of investigation, why not just take the billions of dollars going into developing open access textbooks and give it to the current textbook publishers to make their content free for the students with greatest need? Or use it to subsidize the top 20 percent of titles from publishers, or the top X percent of most widely used textbooks, making the current high quality products free to students rather spending money to reinvent an industry that already exists? Sure, this would have unintended consequences as well, but we might start with a higher bar and have an immediate affordabilty impact across the widest possible range of students.
My comment here is meant to be somewhat flippant or extreme -- the point being that we cannot throw money at OER and just expect that it will produce high quality, affordable results. There are reasons to support OER and the OER movement beyond affordability. The movement would be well served to make more of those arguments, and fact-check some of their current assumptions related to affordability.
Monday, June 13, 2011
What's wrong with my technology???
Well, things have been a bit busy lately. I have dozens of items awaiting write-up for posting, and certainly there is no shortage of news happening in this space lately. I hope to be back to a more regular posting pattern in the very near future.
In the interim, a colleague shared this video with me over the weekend, and I thought it would be a good way to start out a Monday morning for everyone. British humor applied to technology -- what could be better?
In the interim, a colleague shared this video with me over the weekend, and I thought it would be a good way to start out a Monday morning for everyone. British humor applied to technology -- what could be better?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)