I recently read a 2014 article about eTextbooks; the focus of the narrative study, published in College Teaching and written by Jenny Bossaller and Jenna Kammer, both at the University of Missouri, centered on faculty experience with eTextbooks, particularly those developed by college textbook publishers, and the advantages and disadvantages of this approach and arrangement.
Bossaller and Kammer’s purpose in the article was “to inform instructors and administrators of the positive aspects (such as convenience, portability, and currency) and negative aspects (such as privacy, cost, and outsourcing) of teaching with etexts” (69). Their methodology included a literature review about etext use in higher education and narrative interviews with eight faculty who had used etexts produced in conjunction with vendors (and in some cases, faculty who had also produced their own eTextbook).
The authors list from another study (Cheverie, Peterson, and Cummings, 2012), “six major policy areas for etexts in higher education: affordability, broadband (network connectivity), information policy (encompassing access versus ownership, Digital Rights Management [DRM], and preservation), accessibility, privacy and security, and identity management (capable of single sign-on)”, but focus in their paper on affordability, privacy, and access, and add to this list outsourcing etext production, which they define as an important policy decision made by the faculty and university (69).
The information in the study surprised me in several ways:
1. I had not read much about nor thought much about the policy implications of the fact that college textbook companies have expanded their roles these days and are now also in the business of providing Learning Management Systems, interactive etextbooks, and much more. For instance, some companies can also support on-line programs, do market research, provide student recruitment and retention services, and do course design and development for universities. The authors raise the issue of this outsourcing as one to be seriously discussed and give an example of a university scaling back their arrangements with such vendors because of the high cost and because “’[w]e didn’t want to be dependent on a for-profit company [for] our academic reputation’ (Parry, 2010, sec. 5, para.4)” (70).
2. Recently I heard an NPR story on the reason for the current high cost of textbooks, How College Students Battled Textbook Publishers to a Draw, In 3 Graphs. Part of the reason is that each year fewer new textbooks are being sold—thanks to the myriad on-line sources where students can more effectively buy used and the textbook rental programs through college bookstores—so new textbook prices must be raised to cover the loss of quantity. So surely, eTextbooks would be more affordable, and could solve this problem. Again Bossaller and Kammer’s information surprised me. Because of the cost of developing eTextbooks (presumably interactive elements, technical production costs, etc.), etexts were no less expensive than “a new hard copy of the textbook and sold back to the bookstore” (69). Of course, the eTextbook would have many more features that could benefit the learning process, but this is unlikely to be persuasive to students.
3. Even more surprising, though, was a study mentioned in the article that found students would prefer to buy a lower cost print copy of their textbook rather than a free eTextbook. Granted this information is from a 2008 Student Public Interest Research Group study, which is light years in the past, comparatively speaking, but I’d like to go to this source to read more.
4. Learning analytics is something I have been hearing more and more about and this phrase comes up in this article as well. Basically, learning analytics can be quizzes embedded into a ETextbook that then synch with the LMS, or information for the instructor about whether a student has opened a file or watched a video. But the authors point to issues others have raised about the various boundaries of what data gets collected and how it is used. I was interested that one professor interviewed for the article did not like being monitored when she worked at a for-profit university who tracked the time she was spending on each unit.
I think the bottom line from this article is that contracting with vendors to produce an eTextbook may be a very good solution for many professors and can result in getting an interactive eTextbook for students with tools that aren’t possible in-house at the university. However, there are caveats: some subject matters are more conducive than others, the cost may or may not be more affordable for students that a traditional textbook, the eText may only be available to the student during the course, and the faculty may or may not be able to pick and choose the content for the eTextbook in order to tailor it more closely for their students’ needs.
Though the article didn’t focus on faculty who were producing eTextbooks themselves to offer students for free or very low cost, it did mention faculty who were moving into this self-publishing direction. In this case, the burden of the technical work is on the faculty member, although many universities have services like our CII and Exchange that can help faculty navigate these new waters.
Article discussed: Jenny Bossaller & Jenna Kammer (2014) Faculty Views on eTextbooks: A Narrative Study, College Teaching, 62:2, 68-75, DOI: 10.1080/87567555.2014.885877
If you’d like to read the article, you can view it once you’re logged onto the GSU library site: It’s located on JStor database. You may also be able to use this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2014.885877.
Amanda