[Factc] [EXTERNAL] OER/Article from the Chronicle

[Jennifer Whetham]

I would LOVE to discuss this article at the February meeting! I thought I might throw out a few quotes from the article (bolded), quotes from the teachers who volunteered for the survey (italics), and then what I hope might be some provocative points (underlined) to spark discussion.

My intent is not to create petty conflict, but rather constructive controversy. I really want to know where you see something differently than I do! My intention is to learn from you!

Thanks, Karen, for vetting and curating this article . . . and to Gerry for sending it out!

Can't wait to see everyone in February!

Peace,

Jen


1.    "For the first time, the survey also asked about online homework systems and inclusive access subscriptions, adaptations to an increasingly digital and on-demand culture. In the survey, 37 percent of instructors said they require students to use an online homework system, but only 7 percent use subscriptions."

o   I think this is a hidden cost for many students in STEM fields, Math, and English. In Washington, we have the math thingie (technical term) created by David Lippman at Pierce, but we don't have something like this for STEM and English. Here's one quote from the article about "ancillary materials" in the discipline of Biology:

o   "Others at my institution are unwilling to consider converting the major's biology courses to OER because of lack of availability of quality ancillary materials, as well as fears about edition updates."

o   Here's another interesting counter-argument to equity and OERS that I thought was super valid, provocative, and interesting:

o   "OER is not closing the achievement gap for underserved populations in math. A product like Pearson offers much more powerful resources, metrics, and both student and instructor use advantages compared to any OER courseware availability in math."

o   I'd love to see us invest some resources and honorariums to faculty in those fields (and others I'm not aware of) to create something that could replace online homework systems and inclusive access subscriptions.

2.    "Asked why students don't have access to textbooks, 52 percent of faculty members say cost is the primary factor. Yet a significant minority - 38 percent - believe students don't buy textbooks because they don't think they need them."

o   There is a new attitude among my students that textbooks aren't essential to their understanding of the course content. My students feel if I am not reading the textbook to them directly (via a lecture) what is the point of buying it."

o   "The average cost of a cell phone per major semester is about $700.00. In my opinion, textbooks are affordable by comparison. Plus, textbooks are a necessity in order to do well in class, whereas cell phones are a discretionary expense."

o   I'd really like to dig into these two quotes, because I worry about the assumptions embedded in these statements. Earlier, a faculty member in the survey reported that he/she/they

o   "detest traditional textbooks. I really believe students should be pushed intellectually and most textbooks are just far too over-produced and try to do too much. From what I can see students fail to even crack them open because they are dull or too simplistic. Or, when they do open them it is only in courses where they are memorizing content and not really engaging in deep thought. So there a few things going on here."

o   If the textbooks are "over-produced" and "try to do too much" and are "dull and simplistic," then of course students don't want to buy it and they definitely don't feel it's worth the cost. I also don't know, what with all the digital natives in our classrooms, if cell phones really are a discretionary expense. It is a primary method of gaining information-a whole library-LIBRARIES-at your fingertips. I use my cell phone in this way-I prefer it for reading and getting access to realms of different kind of information and also for processing that information in terms of synthesis. Finally, the contrast between the comment about "textbooks are a necessity to do well in class" versus "when they do open them it is only in courses where they are memorizing content and not really engaging in deep thought." So I'd like to ask that first professor exactly how and why textbooks are a "Necessity." For example, are the primary modes of assessing learning quizzes and tests? And for the professor who says that the students want him/her/them to "read the textbook them directly via a lecture"-what is the culture of learning this professor is creating that encourages this mindset? Also, if the instructor is not guiding/showing/coaching students how to read-both textbooks and the specifics of what reading looks like in the discipline, as in specific mechanics of reading, when to read, how to read, etc.-then most students are not going to read the book. So why would they buy it? Please note that I don't make this statement from a deficit mindset of "students are lazy." Rather, I make it from the vantage point of when I taught 200 level Shakespeare courses. We ALWAYS began with a rigorous exploration and practice with the skills and habits of mind and discipline-specific knowledge needed to read Shakespeare. And then we practiced it every week together as a way of going deeper into the content. I worry that these statements reflect outdated notions to knowledge and pedagogy. Information is readily available to students. We need to teach them how to discern quality information and then how to use it to solve problems. Ready for constructive controversy! Tell me why I'm wrong. I want to know! I'm totally willing to be wrong.

3.    And this. This feels like an opinion:

o   "Digital is directly related to the dumbing down of college classes. Students need to read carefully, take notes and do their work. You will not change the several thousand years of learning how to learn with digital books. Digital is hurting humanity and the future. Wake Up!"

o   Wow. I'm not saying there isn't room for claims that are supported with evidence, but this doesn't feel like one. If this were a thesis in an argumentative essay, I'd be sure to schedule a conference with this writer immediately to talk about the difference between a claim and an opinion. It feels more like a fear-the world is changing so much, and so are the students. What if I can't keep up? Why did several thousand years of learning get disrupted by digital while I was still teaching? This isn't fair! I don't want to have to change!

4.    And this one:

o   "I think it's still very important that students have printed versions of texts required in my literature courses, since "close reading" is the central skill we practice at each meeting. Studies have been done that show students reading poorly online; this is true for me as well."

o   Is this a valid argument? YES. Do I agree? NO. The last time I taught Shakespeare, I had students buy a very expensive Shakespeare text-edited by Greenblatt, published by Bedford St. Martin's. It was super expensive (one single mom on a budget called me panicking because she had ordered it online for her daughter for a price she could afford but it wouldn't be there by the first day and she was so, so, SO worried-I felt terrible). It had tiny print on paper like parchment. It was heavy to carry all day (this was a night class) and it actually prohibited the students from close reading because it was just difficult. That quarter, I discovered that MIT had put high quality translations (the Ardens) online with HUGE font-easily searchable by play/act/scene/line. It was brilliant. We read the text together in a variety of ways and in my assessments, I found that section of students were increasingly more capable of high quality close reading.

5.    "Others are torn between what they view as choice between cost and quality."

o   I would argue this is a false binary. Pedagogically, I'd like us to rethink our notions of "quality"-at least interrogate them thoroughly-again, I'll invoke the statement above:

o   "most textbooks are just far too over-produced and try to do too much. >From what I can see students fail to even crack them open because they are dull or too simplistic. Or, when they do open them it is only in courses where they are memorizing content and not really engaging in deep thought."

o   As someone who has done a lot of textbook reviews and had a lot of friends publish textbooks. . . the publishers are not concerned with student learning. They are concerned with the broad majority of teachers will think is good for student learning. There's a lot of overlap there, of course, but I haven't seen publishers really dig into the middle of that Venne diagram. I actually wrote an article about this a few years ago for Teaching English in the Two Year College about the monolithic, glacial pace of textbook reform in the field of composition, while the theory and practice argued for in journals changes at a rapid pace. There's a HUGE disconnect between the discourse in the field versus what the teachers teach using textbooks.

Again, I've kind of gone out on a limb here and been pretty frank because I'm hoping we can engage in a rich and deep discussion about OERS and barriers to their implementation.

With gratitude,

Jen
From: Factc <factc-bounces at lists.ctc.edu> On Behalf Of Smith, Gerard via Factc
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 10:22 AM
To: factc at lists.ctc.edu
Subject: [Factc] FW: [EXTERNAL] OER/Article from the Chronicle

Karen passed this on to consider during our ongoing OER discussion.

Gerry



From: Halpern, Karen <khalpern at spscc.edu<mailto:khalpern at spscc.edu>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 4:55 PM
To: Smith, Gerard <GSmith at clark.edu<mailto:GSmith at clark.edu>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] OER/Article from the Chronicle

Dear Gerry,

A colleague sent me this link to an article published today:  https://www.chronicle.com/article/Professors-Worry-About-the/245435?cid=wcontentlist_hp_latest

It might be worth adding to the discussion in February.

Karen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ctc.edu/pipermail/factc_lists.ctc.edu/attachments/20190110/83d64ba6/attachment-0002.html>