7 Jun
2013
7 Jun
'13
11:59 a.m.
On Fri, 7 Jun 2013, Ian King wrote:
I remember when I was first at university, they
changed editions of a
(very expensive) chemistry book partway through my sequence (which was,
to be fair, off-sequence as I had started during summer quarter). I
kept using the one I had, because I couldn't afford to buy the new one
and trade-in value of the old one was a joke, of course. I developed a
mapping between the page numbers in the two editions, and NOT ONCE did I
find any difference in the content.
The frequency of editions in educational textbooks is high enough that
usually the only noticeable differences will be page numbering, a few
illustrations (particularly the cover picture), and maybe the exercises at
the end of the chapter.
I think that they need "MINOR" edition numbering (2.1, 2.2, 2.3 V 3,4,5)
Since the students are buying new, and therefore getting the "current"
one, the teacher is stuck with using the newest. The publishers will send
free "desk" copies to the teachers, so they aren't financially affected.
What a scam. And it's a shame for academic
institutions to buy into it.
At the University of Washington, a number of instructors have moved to
the model of preparing their own instructional materials and relying
less on traditional texts. This helps the students in two ways: lower
cost and lower *weight*. (Load it all up on a tablet and go.) -- Ian
The schools still discourage letting the teachers create their own
materials. Some of that is due to a few abuses of some teachers
overcharging for a "reader" published and available through local
copy centers. One teacher was accused of such profiteering inspite of
hiw reader being cheaper than any of the available textbooks.
The school bookstore, which is often a franchise from a national
conglomerate such as "Follet", wants a monopoly. But, they often refuse
to carry readers by instructors, which means that those are cold by the
local copy center.
Some more of the resistance is that the textbook is listed in the "course
outline" (which is now up to 20 pages, with sections on "content",
"instructional methods", "Student Learning Outcomes", etc.) and THAT
document is used for articulation - getting universities and grad schools
to accept the course for transfer. "You claim to have taken the same
course at your previous school before transferring here; give us a copy of
the "Course Outline", and if it is virtually identical to ours, including
the same textbook, then we will let you transfer the course."
So, there are some strange, demented, external pressures preventing the
teacher from selecting book based on what's best,
Another battle that I fought was to permit bot "required" and
"recommended" textbooks. Then, if I was forced to select an inappropriate
textbook, I could list it as "recommended", and go ahead and use an
appropriate one. For example, Rosen "Discrete Math" is a great book, but
it's content was not a good fit for what I felt needed to be covered in
"Computer Math" (I insisted on good coverage of 2's complement,
binary/hex/octal, floating point storage format, etc. )
I was under a lot of pressure to "teach Microsoft C". I insisted that the
course was "C Programming". THEREFORE, I used and showed a bunch of
different com[pilers in class, and made the students (over
screaming objections) do one program using a command line compiler (GCC,
DeSmet "Personal C", or any other), and then do one program using an
integrated development environment (such as Micrtosoft C), although I
suggested that they use the Borland free download of Turbo C. "The course
is about C! It is NOT about some specific comiler! Those who teach a
compiler, instead of teaching programming and the language are ignorant
suits." MY students could sit down with whatever compiler was available.
I told my students that if they intended to ever use C for anything, that
they should get a copy of K&R, but that they could probably get through
the class with a used copy of Deitel or Waite/Prata/Martin
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
(retired 2 weeks)