Yesterday, I linked to the following article (thank you, A.):

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says forcing California's students to rely on printed textbooks is so yesterday: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hfHxHQeOOEBGeR3_JC0Hnl_DeWyAD98O2OF00

Do you agree with his decision to use more online learning materials to gradually phase out traditional printed textbooks in schools?

To me this is a generational question and I would like to see how many dinosaurs vs. modernists we have in this discussion group.

As usual, all sorts of nuanced answers are possible (Yes, but; No, but; It depends; Yes, but not everywhere and not always; No, but yes in 7.5 years, etc.) so feel free to articulate them in your replies, especially in relation to your own (grand)children, if you have any. Has the time come?

Our previous poll, run three years ago, had a different slant. The majority replied then "When I have to read online, I tend to scan and skim" (Post #90252) 

The question three years later, is:

Should we eliminate textbooks from schools today?

Note the idea "starting today."  If you are for the digital in science but against it in humanities and you believe that the emphasis should be on the former, that would be the prevailing trend I am interested in. If you want to reply "Yes, but," please check "Yes." If you want to reply "No, but," please check "No." The article I linked to has some further background.

I know that this poll is unscientific, cannot prove anything, should have 97 detailed options because life is not black and white, and you simply cannot answer this question because it makes no sense whatsoever.

That's precisely why I am running this poll, as all the others before: Say it. :)

I haven't voted yet - have to think about it a little more.

I lean towards a yes, though, and that despite my love of books. For pleasure, I would not read a book online. A textbook --- I don't know --- you don't have to like the idea to see that it makes some sense.

When my now ten-year-old grandson was six, he knew the basics of how to use a computer. I was 36 before I set eyes on one: an unwieldy thing with two noisy floppy drives and keyboard commands. I had a dot matrix printer that printed text so full of tiny "holes" that it hurt your eyes to read it. Four years later, I attached a S L O W modem to my second computer - I had mail!

Today, I would not be without a computer. I get ALL my news via the Internet. I've followed the Iranian election just as I followed the EU Parliamentary election and the last US election.

I attended the University of Southern Denmark via daily online briefs and pre-tests, and I also received notice via email, two years later, that I had earned my Specialised Language Diploma.

Classes were once a month, on a Saturday. Graded tests were as in the old under-graduate days - at the University.

Most, through not all, of the teaching material had been collected from online sources and printed out. Some of the material was scanned so badly that it was unreadable. Or smudged. So, while collected from online sources it was still printed out and read that way.

However, that was back in 2001, and I assume things have improved since then.

Would my grandson mind using online textbooks? Probably not. Would his father, who is a teacher, like the idea of spending less on textbooks? Probably. Would he be happy with all the extra work of finding and collecting and, I assume, scanning and printing? Probably not.

Nanna

What about if there is no electricity for 2 days and your battery went down; what about if there is no electricity at all; what about wanting to study in the park and forget about the whole civilization thing; what about if somebody likes books, the smell of them? This is limitting personal freedom of choice. It is in fact one of the stupidest ideas I have recently heard.

Have you noticed, Liliana, how, when we really want to do or achieve something and it is important to us or the people we love, we always make sure to have our ducks in a row?

I think when we decide to do our best that is when the proverbial 'the dog ate my homework' excuse has no power to stop us.

Nanna

Yes, Nanna. But are computers also good for your eyes and your health? Why should people be exposed to computers all the time and be at their mercy? It is also fun to study from a book, sometimes.

Well, the first sentence in the article that was quoted about textbooks being "so yesterday" was rather silly and barely thought out.  Further down we read:

The governor recently launched an initiative to see if the state's 6 million public school students can use more online learning materials, perhaps saving millions of dollars a year in textbook purchases.

A state or province will have a set amount of knowledge that all students are to acquire at each grade.  This is planned out in curriculum guidelines.  Textbooks are one way of ensuring that the specified knowledge is gathered in one place in an organized manner, and presented intelligently.  The weakness of textbooks is that the presentation is made in one unchanging manner which may not be suitable for the best teaching, or every kind of student everywhere.

But what they are discussing here does not seem to involve learnings needs - it's a move to save money.

Textbooks are a basic teaching tool.  The same textbook could probably be presented on-line from a central place like a school board or individual school or classroom, to be downloaded and used by all students (assuming they have computer access).  They can be made interactive.  A teacher could have a web-site for student access (many do) and provide links to supplemental material.  The teaching potential is vast and it's barely exploited.

That's the kind of place my mind would go in this topic.

Maxi

I`d say the question was answered, kinda, before it was asked... Post #177914

I have thought about the matter and want to mention that I voted 'yes', which is a yes, but...

Nanna

What about studying on trains, studying while holding onto the railing with one hand, studying in bed, studying on the beach, at the movies, in a circus. I remember I had once to learn all the rivers in Europe and I wanted to go to a circus when I was about 8, so I had to study while watching the lions. Mr. Schwartznegger's policy would have prevented that and I would not know which rivers flow through Europe.   

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 13, 2009 7:46 PM What about studying on trains, studying while holding onto the railing with one hand, studying in bed, studying on the beach, at the movies, in a circus. ...

KINDLE

Amazon Kindle and Kindle 2

The Kindle 2
Type	E-book reader
Release date	1st generation: November 19, 2007 2nd generation: February 9, 2009
Operating system	Linux-2.6.10
Power	3.7 V, 1530 mAh lithium polymer, BA1001 model
CPU	Freescale 532 MHz, ARM-11
Storage capacity	256 MB (original) or 2 GB (Kindle 2) internal flash memory (70% user-accessible)
Display	6 in diagonal, 3.6 (W) × 4.8 in (H), 600 × 800 pixels or 0.48 megapixels, 167 ppi density, 16-level grayscale electronic paper
Input	USB 2.0 port (micro-B connector), SD card (original model only), 3.5 mm stereo headphone jack built-in speaker, AC power adapter jack
Connectivity	Amazon Whispernet using EVDO/CDMA AnyDATA wireless modem
Dimensions	8.0 × 5.3 × 0.36 in (203 x 135 x 9.14 mm)
Weight	289 g (10.2 oz)

My main concern:

"We are at ground zero of the new network society. In this book, its major commentator reveals the Internet's huge capacity to liberate, but also its ability to marginalize and exclude those who do not have access to it." http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Sociology/EnvironmentTechnology/?view=usa&ci=9780199255771

Graph of Internet users per 100 inhabitants between 1997 and 2007 by International Telecommunication Union

Country population penetration of Internet use in 2007

They don't smell like paper.

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 13, 2009 9:31 AM The majority replied then "When I have to read online, I tend to scan and skim" (Post #90252)

As an aside, when talking about "skimming and scanning" I had something like this in mind: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_differrence_beween_scan_and_skim

I wasn't aware of the underlying ambiguity of the verb "to scan" as explained here:

Scan is another word that changed its meaning on the sly. As Jesse Sheidlower noted in a 1997 post at "Mavens' Word of the Day," "the sense 'to examine closely' is found by the mid sixteenth century, and was for a long time the main sense." By the 1920s, he said, scan had come to mean "read hastily; glance at," and nowadays we're surprised to hear it used to mean the opposite.

Something has clearly been lost somewhere, for when I skim and scan a page, I am reading it quickly. 

Less skimming and more scanning 

Nanna

That was a bit confusing to follow.  Apparently the article is about mechanically scanning an electronic page so that you can turn it into a printed hard copy.  It is not about different mental processes involved in reading text.  "Skimming" and "scanning" have not changed their meaning, from what I can tell.  But "scanning" can also mean the thing that you do with a mouse or a scanner (when you turn hard copy into pdf or jpg, for example).  I think I had to read the text a couple of times before catching on to what it was about.  Did anyone else share my confusion (so I can feel a bit less stupid?)

However, the original post was about the suggestion that learning material could be in a different from that text books.  I think that the Internet could be used to supplement and complete the contents of a textbook and that its potential is grossly under-used and under-exploited.  The elimination of text books for the sake of tax dollars is cynical and not thought through.

Maxi

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on June 14, 2009 10:40 AM   The elimination of text books for the sake of tax dollars is cynical and not thought through. Maxi

I absolutely agree. What, are the students to print the materials at home at a much higher cost?

All right, it seems that we have managed to postpone the phasing out of textbooks for a while, at least at TC.

But a new US federal regulation bans the sale of all children’s books published before 1985 that do not meet stringent lead-content standards: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/keeping-books-safe

Books convey and preserve voices. Reading books from a time not our own is our most direct access to that time. Works of literature, like other art, have gone in and out of fashion, but once published, a writer’s work should remain for all generations to read. In the words of Joseph Addison, “Books are the legacies that a great genius leaves to mankind, which are delivered down from generation to generation, as presents to the posterity of those who are yet unborn.”

Imagine, then, a dystopian horror tale in which virtually all books from the past were destroyed. Unlike the censored society in Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, old books owned by scattered eccentric individuals would be left alone, but only books from a narrow strip of the present would be publicly available for sale or lending. ... Even worse than censorship in which books are burned for content some deem objectionable, these books would be destroyed en masse, without individual consideration, only because they were not current.

That incredible scenario is actually playing out in terms of children’s books under a law meant to protect toddlers from lead contaminants in toys. Called the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), the law was passed in August 2008—quickly, without scrutiny, and nearly unanimously—in response to the Chinese lead toy scare of 2007. The act defines its mission so broadly as to cover all “children’s products,” including children’s books. ...

Jacek, I sincerely hope you mistook July 6 for April 1. Please say you did!

Let's double-check with George O. and see what he says.

I`d rather not. Know what? I`ve just shocked my immediate environment by turning my TV set on, and am now leaving the TC for Law and Order.

Originally written by Jacek K. on July 6, 2009 5:47 PM A scenario is actually playing out in terms of children’s books under a law meant to protect toddlers from lead contaminants in toys. Called the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), the law was passed in August 2008—quickly, without scrutiny, and nearly unanimously—in response to the Chinese lead toy scare of 2007. The act defines its mission so broadly as to cover all “children’s products,” including children’s books. ...

Politicians not only like to hug and kiss babies, they also like to be seen as doing something about things that will matter to their constituents...anything will do as long as it's profound and sweeping and saves the world or part of it...

Talk about throwing out the just hugged and kissed baby with the bathwater.

Nanna

PS: that was clearly NOT what I had in mind when I voted in this poll.

Originally written by Dodo Kaipdodo on July 6, 2009 6:35 PM I`ve just shocked my immediate environment by turning my TV set on, and am now leaving the TC for Law and Order.

Jesus, Dodo...

I've got something better for you. Even though we have covered Ayn Rand in other threads, I just wanted to point out here that her latest editions are lead-free and thus qualify to fill any vacuum left after children's books!

What's up with all the Ayn Rand love we're seeing lately? Hasn't the boring and didactic novelist's most prominent acolyte, Alan Greenspan, been revealed as an empty suit in the wake of the financial crash? And hasn't her crassly anti-altruistic, dollar-worshiping world view been soundly dismissed as right-wing fantasy? Yet Atlas Shrugged has reappeared on bestseller lists, and Rand's muddle-headed "Objectivism" is back in the zeitgeist.

Story: http://www.utne.com/Politics/Exhuming-Ayn-Rand.aspx?utm_medium=email&utm_source=iPost