The Professor's Notes

Who are the consumers of textbooks? And how do you define a consumer? We had this discussion recently on the podcast Real Tech for Real People episode 97. We were discussing the increasing use of tablets, and specifically iPads, in primary and secondary education. Of course, this led to a discussion of the use of tablets in higher education. The conversation was wide ranging in a couple key points emerged that I wish to write about here.

The primary and secondary schools systems are selecting a specific device and the books are content to go on that device. In this case, the system purchases the devices and the content and then delivers that to the student. So who is the consumer in this case? Setting aside for the moment the argument that the taxpayer is always the consumer, let’s focus on whether the consumer is the school district or the student. We can all agree that there are many stakeholders in this arrangement: the school board, parents, teachers, students, taxpayers, and I’m sure many others. But when I consider the consumer, I am considering their role in consumer plays in shaping the marketplace. In this case, while the students consumed the content, the school board by virtue of the purse string is the consumer. We can hope they are making wise decisions as they select the best combination of hardware, software, and support infrastructure.

Given this scenario the selection of a specific hardware platform makes sense. As a consumer the school district is selecting an all encompassing solution for all to use. This approach will undoubtedly balance the educational needs with the technological abilities, and of course the fiscal reality is the school board faces. The district will be able to leverage their scarce taxpayer dollars to get the best benefit possible. Are there limitations to this approach? Perhaps. There might be better solutions that only run on a different platform. But those are the tradeoffs one makes when one selects a technological platform on which to base decisions. We must satisfice.

Not consider the higher education model. As professors and students alike start to look towards digital textbooks as a valuable and viable alternative to the costly new-used-new book cycle we find a new challenge. Read the rest of this entry »

Must content and delivery be inextricably entwined?

For centuries our ability to gather content and disseminated wirh tide is not just to the content but to the media and the physical media that was used for delivery. If you wanted to read a book you would buy both the content and the delivery media simultaneously. The words in the paper on which they were printed or written were forever enmeshed. Even in recent decades with books on CD or tape you were still purchasing both the delivery media and the content as an inseparable unit.

We have an opportunity to day with the development of digital content and robust data exchange standards to forever separate the content from the media, or at least that will we use to receive the content. We’re at a crossroads. We can choose to follow the path of standards allowing users to decide on the delivery mechanism they prefer, or we can continue to develop content for delivery in specific devices and tools.

We’re currently entering a world where we have a wide variety of choices for the personal technology we use to access media. For instance, we have both been nearly ubiquitous iPad and now more and more android tablets on the market. We’re also seeing the early stages of windows eight tablets being previewed. If we take a device centric approach content will be developed and delivered as operating system specific applications. This will enable content creators to leverage the unique creative aspects of each of the operating systems and the devices. Read the rest of this entry »

One of the challenges I face is figuring out how to share my various [work interests/hobbies] in a way that shows the relationship between them.  Especially as an academic, trying to show how my various apparently dissimilar research efforts were related posed a specific challenge.  Enter the concept of Venn Diagrams!

While perusing Gina Trapani’s blog from Smarterware.org, I saw she too struggles with sharing her varied, yet often inter-related, interests.

She writes:

It’s a tough question to answer, especially when you’re not working on a single thing. Last weekend at Foo Camp I failed miserably at explaining myself and my slash careers and how they all intersect. But at that same conference, I had the pleasure of attending a session by David Eaves, who eloquently explained that his goal is to apply his experience and training in negotiation skills to open source community management. On his site, he published a map of his past, current, and future work, and how those activities all interrelated. Cool!

When I read this I had one of those “DUH!” moments. It’s a brilliantly simple idea.  I like the way it forces some things into reductionism (you have to determine a fixed set of spheres–how many do you REALLY have?).  In addition, this approach can even help one find relationships between work that seemed “intuitively” there, but were never explicitly stated, even to oneself.  And finally, the approach David and Gina have both taken is to show how they are seeking the “greater good” (or a “Better world”) through their work.

The Venn Diagram David Eaves created is below.  To see the one Gina put together about her interests and work, go visit the link (really–you should!)  To see mine…. well, that may take a while longer.

Feel free to share yours here, or just put a link to yours in the comments!

I have been a proponent of the “Presentation 2.0″ style as a generic term and concept since attending the PodCamp Pittsburgh 2 in 2007.  In that PodCamp we heard from Chris Brogan who reminded us that the power of the presentation slides was to emphasize what the speaker was saying, not to take your attention off the speaker.

We don’t like PowerPoint and we don’t like presentations.  But as much as we want to blame the tool we find we cannot leave this crutch behind.  Perhaps it is because we do not see it as a tool that assists in our delivering content but rather as a surrogate, a stand-in,  so that we aren’t the ones being observed, but rather it is our slides.  Too often we expect (or are required) to have our presentations “stand alone” or worse “speak for themselves” (I say worse, because when given this mission it rarely actually means including the voice of the presenter, but rather that the written words must contain all the thoughts.)  Yes, we cannot leave the world of wordy slides.

Chris Brogan at the time reminded us of the importance of “big pictures” (real images) that convey the emotion, or the sense of the topic discussed, but that we as the speaker should deliver the content.  He also shared that we should remember that presentations are about the audience and our connecting with the audience.  If we are to connect, we cannot have them getting lost in reading the words (the many, many, often forced to be tiny, words…) on the screen.

Here is another take on just that very thing:

So my question for you is this:  What sort of presentation do you prefer? Do you want all the information laid out before you in verbose slides, ensuring you have all the information at your fingertips for later, or are you instead a person who learns best by listening and asborbing?

Leave your comments, or tweet me @SCMProfessor

My brother wrote recently in his blog a response to a student who apparently had some concerns about the apparent futility of writing blogs as a regular (weekly) assignment.  That had me thinking about sharing here the ways I have of helping students “engage” more directly.

I have been assigning blogs for my “Service Operations” class for several years now.  The purpose of the blog is to have the MBA students reflect on a service experience they have recently had and then directly analyze the experience in light of the topics recently covered in the course.  The challenge is quite like the one my brother pointed out–the writing dropped off when they began to feel that no one (least of all, the professor–me) was reading.  My first response was to mandate commenting, similar to what he  mentioned–a sort of stick to the carrot.   Of course, that is difficult to enforce, and leads too often to a quick “nice blog–thanks.” type of analysis.

I have attacked that in four specific ways this semester.

First, I have created a Google Reader bundle which I distributed to the class (and now to you! )  This addresses the issue of me not getting to all of the blogs–I simply work down the full list every week and find some amazing blog entries! In addition, by giving them the bundle, I have directly connected the students with one another and their writings.  That has led to more direct initial engagement. But I suspect that this will not be the “fix” that I hope it to be if there is no way to encourage engagement.

Second, I have used Google Forms to allow students to evaluate their team members’ blogs. I have given them criteria on which to evaluate the blogs of their team-mates, and;

Third, while I treat the responses as confidential information, I share the summary information with the class regularly.  In this way I remind them that others are reading their blogs.  For instance, one of the questions is whether the blog entry covered a positive or a negative service experience.  I used this as a question specifically to encourage a more reasonable balance in the class, since we are more likely to remember (and write about) negative experiences.  As you can see, the balance, at least so far, has shifted to positive experiences. ¹

Finally, I directly reference their blogs in class, asking the author to perhaps lend more backstory, and then weave their narrative and lessons learned into the content of the course.  This works even better when other students are encouraged to share their views on what they took away from reading that blog.

Have any of you found ways to encourage commenting and engagement on blogs? Share it here (seems sort of META doesn’t it?)

I have created a short Tutorial Video on how to create a book using content from Wikipedia.  There is great content available, and I think this is one way that faculty can deliver quality textbooks to their students at affordable (well, NO) costs.

Sure, I know some will say “But it’s WIKI… it’s not to be used for academics! It’s not reliable!”  To that I respond–then take the time, as an expert in your field, to clean up what you think is incorrect–it is, after all, editable by us. Make your contribution to the greater good.

Now, the video:

My brother shared with me an interesting posting, where the question is asked “Is Amazon Lying about eBooks outselling printed books?”

I found the post to be an interesting read but there exists one GLARING problem:  they misuse statistics and probabilities, and reach erroneous (though perhaps accidentally correct) conclusions.

They are acting as if previous numbers/ratios of hardcover to paperback books remain UNCHANGED with the introduction of digital books.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the split has been 77/23 paperback to hardcover. To come in and say that ebooks are 29% which is more than Hardcovers, but not more than the 77% paperback percentage is, well, silly. That would then result in 129% of sales.

Here’s what the author(s) wrote:

“…But then I discovered a business analyst who’d found an even bigger problem with Amazon’s statistic. According to the Nielsen Bookscan service,hardcover books accounted for just 23% of all books sold in the previous year.

So what happens if you ask how many “printed books” Amazon sold, instead of using the smaller number of “hardcover books”? Following the same ratio, Amazon would be selling approximately 334 paperbacks for every 100 hardcover books — or a total of 434 printed books for every 180 ebooks. That would mean over 70% of the books Amazon sells are still printed books — 180 out of 614 — with ebooks accounting for just 29.3% of all the books that Amazon sells.

I do have to insert one quick correction to their comment: the analyst actually wrote that hardcover books account for “23% of total dead-tree book sales”  and that’s important.

Okay, in reality here is what they did:

They read that 23% of all books sold are hardcover. That works out to about 4.3478 books for each percent. They then multiplied that number by 77% to get the magical number of softcover books sold: 334.78 softcover books. They then add those (read: 100%) and compare that to the number of ebooks sold (180). Read the rest of this entry »

Let’s say you are searching around wiki trying to learn about a general topic area, and you find several pages, or even a category that covers the topic you are interested in. It used to be you would have to stay at your computer, or on the webpages, to read that information.  What’s more, you would have no easy way to navigate through the pages, or restructure them in a way that makes sense to YOU as you go through it.  And you certainly can’t save them in a way that makes it simple to go back and read again at your leisure.

At least not until now!

Now, if you find a wiki page, or pages, that you would like to read you can now save the page, or pages, as a “book.” On the left hand side of the screen you will see “print/export” as an option. If you click on that, you can enable “book creator” and start adding pages to your “book.”

You can add pages as you find them, and then move them around to get them in the sequence that makes the most sense for you.  In addition, you can create “Chapters” that will help you, and others, understand the structure of your document and provide a sense of direction and flow.

Once you have added pages, sorted them, and added chapter headings you can then save the collection as a “PDF” book, or an Open Document format perfect for editing using the Open Office Writer tool.  I have created a mini-textbook dealing with Supply Chain Management.  I created this so that I could share this information in an accessible and structured way for my students in the Collaborative Supply Chain Management class.

In addition, you can print the collection of “pages” as a real paper book.  Wikipedia makes this possible through PediaPress with prices starting at $7.90.  They explain it this way:

PediaPress offers high-quality printed books based on wiki content and is an official partner of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Clicking the Order book from PediaPress button, will take you to the website of PediaPress. Once there you’ll get a quote for your individual printed book and see a preview how it would look like.

The price depends on the number of pages, starting with US$ 7.90 for books up to 100 pages. 10% of the gross sales price goes to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Books are perfect bound, printed in the dimensions 8.5 inch x 5.5 inch (216 mm x 140 mm) and contain a table of contents, your chapters and articles, licensing information next to an index.

More information on printed books can be found in the FAQ.

One more thing:  If you have a Wikipedia account, and if you have made at  least 10 “contributions” to the Wiki (including additions, changes, deletions or corrections) you can and share your book with others.  Very useful if you want to maintain the “digital, cloud-based” feel of the wiki but provide a guided experience for your friends, or students.

E-Book PDF: Open in New Window | Download

The connectedness of… a newly selected nominee to the US Supreme Court, the abortion issue… Arizona immigration law… and a Pennsylvania tax amnesty commercial?

Privacy.  PRIVACY.  The RIGHT to PRIVACY.  Do you believe we should have a right to privacy?  Should we expect that our government will allow us to live our lives without surveillance, free from the need to check, to constantly look over our shoulders to see who from the government is watching?

As always the world is full of events occupying our time and driving the news.  And, as is usually the case, each story is presented in isolation.  Rarely does anyone discuss the connectedness of the stories or their implications.  Often, that means little, but occasionally the disconnectedness points to the dissonance in government when agencies pursue their agendas.  Once in a while the opportunity arises from this to view the conflict in “generalizable principles” that drive our government’s behavior. Read the rest of this entry »

As you may know, I am looking forward to the day when our “textbooks” will be digital and students can purchase them at a fraction of what they pay now.  Of course, additional savings would be physical (lighter books–in one reader) and the “Green” impact of removing all the wastes and costs of production and delivery.

One author, however, worries that if we view the iPad as the path that Apple would rise up and exert censorship over the content, giving us the Jobs view of the world (much as many criticize Disney for giving us Walt’s sanitized view of how the world is.)  I could see  Apple doing that not only to sanitize content, but also to further whatever political agendas they may have given their apparent arbitrary, capricious and vindictive approaches to what is and isn’t approved.  (political in this sense in the larger meaning, not simply political as in government affairs.)

I mentioned this is an email, and in reply, I was told that we shouldn’t worry about that.  That Apple has demonstrated a willingness to not interfere in educational issues as shown through iTunesU and that Apple would probably never get enough market share for that to happen.

Perhaps.  But that led me to ponder further what really would it take to get digital texts  (or as my brother calls them “educational applications” to move from obscurity to ubiquity–and will proprietary get in the way?

First I wanted to address the interesting  notion that  iTunesU is the model of an Open Apple.  That might be true, but the textbook/educational applications that we are seeing discussed are positioned to be sold through the AppStore model, and  the App Store is a model of a closed Apple.  At times, a VERY closed Apple.   Recently we have seeen Apple exerting control not only on content but the tools to be used in developing that content.But let’s set aside for a moment the problems of if Apple were to control the market, and look at what it would take to get there.
Perhaps my correspondent is correct that Apple cannot garner enough market share to make them (and their iPad) a viable contender and competitor in the textbook space, but then we are left wondering:

• If Apple doesn’t control a significant share of the textbook “space” then what are the options for students?
• What incentive will students have to drop $500+ on a device that only a small fraction of faculty will have as the platform for their texts/instructional materials?

Will Apple work towards open standards so that the books/media will be able to be hosted on a wide range of platforms, or will Apple insist on a proprietary standard, working towards exclusivity for the instructional material they “host” on their platform.  This isn’t simply a red herring tossed out to direct attention from some “Greater Good.”  The fact is that right now students are able to choose from a variety of sources to purchase their texts (and thus a wide range of service/price combinations) and even between new and used books.  Faculty can choose between various textbook publishers/providers, which allows the professor to not only choose the best content, but the best value package for the students.

All that can disappear if one source controls the access to the media, and if there exist competing exclusive and proprietary sources for access to media, then students will be required to purchase not one, but several expensive readers/devices depending on the choices of the faculty member.  Or, alternatively the faculty will be hamstrung, “encouraged” by students or administration to only focus on those source-materials available and the dominant device.

So here we go–what is the decision making process that leads a faculty member to assign a “multi-media resource” as the course “text” rather than a regular textbook? What do you when the students are told that for my ONE class the book is no longer that big expense at $100-200 but rather the iPad becomes the big expense–costing 2-5 times that amount. AND there is no guarantee that any other faculty members will commit to a similar path? And of course the publishers don’t want to reduce the price of the “text” below 50% of the current price AND don’t want to make the “book” available permanently. And don’t forget, most technology has a life of 2-3 years when used regularly. Heavy use, along with ever increasing complexity of the applications/software, may well shorten the lifespan of the product that students must purchase, shifting them from a 1 time outlay to 2, or 3 times in the span of a college career–assuming of course that enough faculty adopt these “books” to make it worth their while.

At a time when the pressures from students AND the federal government is to lower the costs of education (and specifically texts) what professor wants to be the one to step up and insist that students get a high priced device that is designed for obsolescence?

So we are faced with an interesting challenge.  At a time when technology is holding out such promise we find at least one company who has the technical ability to break down the cost walls while simultaneously catapulting the technology of learning well beyond anything we have experienced.  And we find that the same company is tighting the grips on their “ecosystem” arguing that they can control their own little corner of the world.

This is one of those pivotal moments–we can see proprietary walls go up, and little gardens of creative learning spread slowly.  Or we can encourage open architectures that will enable creativity and learning to spread quickly, and widely.

Ubiquity? Or Proprietary? Which way do you think things will go?