XplanaZine

In 1997, I spent time speaking to teachers and administrators throughout Oklahoma on the topic of computers and education. At my first three talks, the QA portion of the sessions always began with the same question — “Do you think computers will replace teachers?” My answer, stated as diplomatically as possible (the State Department of Education was footing the bill), was that technology does a better job of disseminating information that teachers ever will. And, I would continue, if all that teachers are doing is passing along information, then they not only can be replaced by computers but they should be.As you can imagine, this attitude was met with a mixture of satisfied nods and uneasy glances around the room. About half of the audience generally understood the statement and were satisfied that their work was a lot more than just passing along information. The other half either didn’t understand what I was saying or wasn’t certain about what they were doing.

Of course, this same statement about teachers can be applied to educational institutions and content providers in general. James Hilton has pointed out the need for universities to move from an information economy to a knowledge economy and, more recently, David Wiley questioned the relevancy of Higher Education along similar lines in his testimony to US Secretary of Education’s
href=”http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/index.html”>Commission on the Future of Higher Education. As both point out, information is static and, these days, can be had almost anywhere for free. If they are only about being gateways to such information, then universities, schools, libraries, and teachers are necessarily at a competitive disadvantage with regards to technology and they become useless as anything other than a traditional and convenient socialization process for younger citizens.

Information is ubiquitous in this Information Age and can be processed, cross indexed, and searched for, and retrieved in every way imaginable using available technology. Google Print is frightening to many people not because it is a real threat to copyright, but rather because the company plans to index every source of information in the world — printed or otherwise — and make that information searchable and retrievable by every person on the planet. In other words, Google plans to own the information business and they do it much better than human beings or academic institutions can.

But, ideally, education is not about information — it is about knowledge. And for information to become knowledge it requires added context and interactivity. Knowledge implies learning and mentoring frameworks supported by communities. If education is to be relevant in the 21st century, it will have to become focused in a singular fashion on knowledge as opposed to information. In addition, the real value of teachers and institutions/schools is to provide the knowledge frameworks and interaction that make the acquisition of knowledge and understanding possible.

But all of that is rehash. We know this and most of us (educators and educational institutions) want to transform ourselves and our work to ensure that we are indeed relevant. We are in the education business because knowledge is incredibly important and makes a difference on personal, institutional, and societal levels.

My question, then is not about education in general but about textbooks (defined abstractly here as print or digital educational supplements). Are they relevant? Are they relevant in a way that transcends information? Are they relevant in a unique way that keeps them from being made obsolete by the information processing power of technology? Do they merit an entire industry (commercial or open source)? I don’t know.

I don’t know because textbooks provide a different function in the education variable for different kinds teachers. For some, the textbook is only an information supplement. For others, it is the framework for the course and provides additional interactivity and structuring that makes knowledge possible. For the rest, textbooks represent something in between these two poles. I think textbook providers (commercial and open source) think about knowledge but too often have settled for the role of information provider.

What I do know is that major participants in the educational process in this century must gravitate towards knowledge. I also know that there is no place for anyone or any player in education who isn’t an active participant in the learning process. That includes textbooks. If they are are only passive frameworks or sources of information then they have less relevance and far less commercial value.

So, for all those who write, edit, and produce textbooks I have a couple of suggestions. First, you should rethink carefully the purpose of your products and you should realize that only those that focus on knowledge and frameworks for knowledge acquisition will have a high value in the future. Second — and this is for those who produce larger lists of textbooks — you should think about pricing your products based on their real value. These days, information is practically free. Knowledge, however is valuable. If what you are providing is, essentially, information with pretty pictures, you should price the product according to its real market value. If you are providing a real knowledge framework, however, prove it and make sure everyone understands it. In such a case you can charge a premium price and users won’t complain (because the product is uniquely valuable).

I believe textbooks can be valuable conduits for knowledge and that, in such cases, they will be possibly worth more than the current high prices we ask students to pay for them. Currently, however, most perceive the purpose of textbooks to be informational and supplementary to the real knowledge framework — the class or teacher. Unless that perception changes, textbooks and textbook producers could be in for a bumpy ride ahead.