<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Online multimedia textbooks: A strategic investment</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2007/02/online_multimed.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2007/02/online_multimed.html</link>
	<description>Technology, leadership, and the future of schools</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:00:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Karen Janowski</title>
		<link>http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2007/02/online_multimed.html/comment-page-1#comment-14975</link>
		<dc:creator>Karen Janowski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://annahein.com/2007/02/online_multimed.html#comment-14975</guid>
		<description>Scott,
Thank you - you challenge assumptions with new ideas.  This would shake up the textbook industry!
Two questions for you - do you know how much revenue the textbook publishers generate annually?
Totally different subject - Is there a way to determine how much money is paid by teachers for teachers&#039; unions?  Aren&#039;t teachers&#039; unions an idea whose time has passed? Couldn&#039;t that money be better spent elsewhere?
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Scott,<br />
Thank you &#8211; you challenge assumptions with new ideas.  This would shake up the textbook industry!<br />
Two questions for you &#8211; do you know how much revenue the textbook publishers generate annually?<br />
Totally different subject &#8211; Is there a way to determine how much money is paid by teachers for teachers&#8217; unions?  Aren&#8217;t teachers&#8217; unions an idea whose time has passed? Couldn&#8217;t that money be better spent elsewhere?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott McLeod</title>
		<link>http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2007/02/online_multimed.html/comment-page-1#comment-14976</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott McLeod</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://annahein.com/2007/02/online_multimed.html#comment-14976</guid>
		<description>Karen, according to Forbes (http://tinyurl.com/ymoavc), as of 2000 the elementary and secondary textbook industry is about $4 billion.

I have no idea what the total amount of teacher union dues is in this country. NEA and AFT have that info but I don&#039;t know if they&#039;d release it. Regarding the issue of whether or not the idea of teacher unions is one whose time has passed, I think I&#039;ll be safe and just say that lots of people don&#039;t think so.   =)
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Karen, according to Forbes (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/ymoavc" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/ymoavc</a>), as of 2000 the elementary and secondary textbook industry is about $4 billion.</p>
<p>I have no idea what the total amount of teacher union dues is in this country. NEA and AFT have that info but I don&#8217;t know if they&#8217;d release it. Regarding the issue of whether or not the idea of teacher unions is one whose time has passed, I think I&#8217;ll be safe and just say that lots of people don&#8217;t think so.   =)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Lach</title>
		<link>http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2007/02/online_multimed.html/comment-page-1#comment-14977</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Lach</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://annahein.com/2007/02/online_multimed.html#comment-14977</guid>
		<description>Thanks, Scott, but this is a pretty simplistic idea. Strong instructional materials are much more complicated to develop that you&#039;ve described--review the history of NSF and post-Sputnik materials development efforts. The industry right now has realized that providing paper bound books is only part of the solution--training, support, assessments, etc is part of the value proposition as well. And most importantly, changing teacher practice involves more than just providing good tools to teachers--it involves developing a comprehensive system of support that fosters teaching and learning. Your proposal sounds like you&#039;re seduced by the magic of technology. The real magic happens between teachers and students.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Scott, but this is a pretty simplistic idea. Strong instructional materials are much more complicated to develop that you&#8217;ve described&#8211;review the history of NSF and post-Sputnik materials development efforts. The industry right now has realized that providing paper bound books is only part of the solution&#8211;training, support, assessments, etc is part of the value proposition as well. And most importantly, changing teacher practice involves more than just providing good tools to teachers&#8211;it involves developing a comprehensive system of support that fosters teaching and learning. Your proposal sounds like you&#8217;re seduced by the magic of technology. The real magic happens between teachers and students.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott McLeod</title>
		<link>http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2007/02/online_multimed.html/comment-page-1#comment-14978</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott McLeod</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://annahein.com/2007/02/online_multimed.html#comment-14978</guid>
		<description>Michael, thank you for your thoughtful comments. I always appreciate the opportunity to receive feedback and refine my thinking about what I write.

I&#039;m not claiming that my proposed structure represents a complete solution, just that this is an idea worth considering (with whatever adjustments are necessary). Maybe my numbers are low. Although I envisioned the teams including assessments as part of the textbook creation process, maybe we need another $1 million (or more) per team to create those assessments. I&#039;m not sure what the numbers would be - I just threw out a back-of-the-envelope calculation - but whatever they would be, they still would be a pittance of the overall federal education budget.

In return for the relatively minimal federal investment I propose, however, we&#039;d replace a significant expense for school districts across the country and thus free up a much greater amount of capital for other things (more teachers, laptops for students, whatever). This wouldn&#039;t replace all expenses. For example, the training and support structure costs that you cite might still exist and could be picked up by textbook publishers, curricular organizations, or other entities. But the core would be free, openly accessible, and hopefully modifiable by local educators.

I guess I have more faith than you that a team of content experts, pedagogical experts, and computer programmers such as I describe could create a pretty powerful, multimedia-rich, engaging, standards-based online textbook that would be attractive to most states and school districts across the country.

I don&#039;t think I&#039;m seduced by the power of technology, as you say, and I definitely didn&#039;t argue anywhere in my post against the importance and the magic of teacher-student interactions. In contrast, I can see the textbooks that I describe as being incredibly powerful resources because they would enable educators and students to access more engaging, rich learning materials than what currently passes for textbooks in most elementary and secondary classrooms. Moreover, these digital materials could be modified relatively easily to remain current, take advantage of new presentation / interactive technologies, etc.

I&#039;d be interested in hearing more from you about whether (and why) you think that paper textbooks would be preferable to what I&#039;m proposing. If you don&#039;t believe that, why not support my proposal (with any needed modifications)?
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael, thank you for your thoughtful comments. I always appreciate the opportunity to receive feedback and refine my thinking about what I write.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not claiming that my proposed structure represents a complete solution, just that this is an idea worth considering (with whatever adjustments are necessary). Maybe my numbers are low. Although I envisioned the teams including assessments as part of the textbook creation process, maybe we need another $1 million (or more) per team to create those assessments. I&#8217;m not sure what the numbers would be &#8211; I just threw out a back-of-the-envelope calculation &#8211; but whatever they would be, they still would be a pittance of the overall federal education budget.</p>
<p>In return for the relatively minimal federal investment I propose, however, we&#8217;d replace a significant expense for school districts across the country and thus free up a much greater amount of capital for other things (more teachers, laptops for students, whatever). This wouldn&#8217;t replace all expenses. For example, the training and support structure costs that you cite might still exist and could be picked up by textbook publishers, curricular organizations, or other entities. But the core would be free, openly accessible, and hopefully modifiable by local educators.</p>
<p>I guess I have more faith than you that a team of content experts, pedagogical experts, and computer programmers such as I describe could create a pretty powerful, multimedia-rich, engaging, standards-based online textbook that would be attractive to most states and school districts across the country.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think I&#8217;m seduced by the power of technology, as you say, and I definitely didn&#8217;t argue anywhere in my post against the importance and the magic of teacher-student interactions. In contrast, I can see the textbooks that I describe as being incredibly powerful resources because they would enable educators and students to access more engaging, rich learning materials than what currently passes for textbooks in most elementary and secondary classrooms. Moreover, these digital materials could be modified relatively easily to remain current, take advantage of new presentation / interactive technologies, etc.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d be interested in hearing more from you about whether (and why) you think that paper textbooks would be preferable to what I&#8217;m proposing. If you don&#8217;t believe that, why not support my proposal (with any needed modifications)?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kelly Christopherson</title>
		<link>http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2007/02/online_multimed.html/comment-page-1#comment-14979</link>
		<dc:creator>Kelly Christopherson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://annahein.com/2007/02/online_multimed.html#comment-14979</guid>
		<description>Hi Scott,

All I have to say is are you looking for Canadians in this? I&#039;d be happy to get involved in something like this - to break away from the notion that we need to follow the textbook. It would force the education system to move forward instead of hiding behind the &quot;wait and see, this too shall pass&quot; mantra that is so common. I agree that the real connection comes from teacher and student interactin but isn&#039;t it about time we moved to connect with students where THEY are not where the teacher happens to be. After all, it is their education!
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Scott,</p>
<p>All I have to say is are you looking for Canadians in this? I&#8217;d be happy to get involved in something like this &#8211; to break away from the notion that we need to follow the textbook. It would force the education system to move forward instead of hiding behind the &#8220;wait and see, this too shall pass&#8221; mantra that is so common. I agree that the real connection comes from teacher and student interactin but isn&#8217;t it about time we moved to connect with students where THEY are not where the teacher happens to be. After all, it is their education!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kyle Brumbaugh</title>
		<link>http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2007/02/online_multimed.html/comment-page-1#comment-14980</link>
		<dc:creator>Kyle Brumbaugh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://annahein.com/2007/02/online_multimed.html#comment-14980</guid>
		<description>Scott:

This is a truly intriguing plan. I think the synergy that could be created by bringing together the teams from around the country would be amazing.  I hope that someone at the Department of Education will pick up the ball and move it up the queue.  I think in the interim, we should all create more course work  that could be rolled into a single project and used for proof of concept.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Scott:</p>
<p>This is a truly intriguing plan. I think the synergy that could be created by bringing together the teams from around the country would be amazing.  I hope that someone at the Department of Education will pick up the ball and move it up the queue.  I think in the interim, we should all create more course work  that could be rolled into a single project and used for proof of concept.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Mercer</title>
		<link>http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2007/02/online_multimed.html/comment-page-1#comment-14981</link>
		<dc:creator>A Mercer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://annahein.com/2007/02/online_multimed.html#comment-14981</guid>
		<description>I was looking at one thing there, the AP English text. I had no text for AP English, we had the literature books themselves, which got me to thinking...what about units, module or node lessons in web/multimedia instead of giant texts?

Just a thought?
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was looking at one thing there, the AP English text. I had no text for AP English, we had the literature books themselves, which got me to thinking&#8230;what about units, module or node lessons in web/multimedia instead of giant texts?</p>
<p>Just a thought?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott McLeod</title>
		<link>http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2007/02/online_multimed.html/comment-page-1#comment-14982</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott McLeod</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://annahein.com/2007/02/online_multimed.html#comment-14982</guid>
		<description>Yeah, AP English probably wasn&#039;t the best example from my tired brain early this morning. I think modules or units would be fine as long as they were part of some coherent curriculum. The problem with Curriki, as I see it, is that so far all the good stuff seems to lack an overarching framework to cohere it all together into a meaningful whole.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, AP English probably wasn&#8217;t the best example from my tired brain early this morning. I think modules or units would be fine as long as they were part of some coherent curriculum. The problem with Curriki, as I see it, is that so far all the good stuff seems to lack an overarching framework to cohere it all together into a meaningful whole.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Mercer</title>
		<link>http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2007/02/online_multimed.html/comment-page-1#comment-14983</link>
		<dc:creator>A Mercer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://annahein.com/2007/02/online_multimed.html#comment-14983</guid>
		<description>Hey, I was just trying to be a pain in the tushie. Wouldn&#039;t this run into problems with state curriculum boards? I bet my state (California) and some other big guys could run their own program, or edit what came down.

Union dues  = ~$1000 a year
The value of having legal representation with your employer without having to pay for it yourself = priceless

Sorry for the plug for the union label Scott, I couldn&#039;t resist ;-)
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey, I was just trying to be a pain in the tushie. Wouldn&#8217;t this run into problems with state curriculum boards? I bet my state (California) and some other big guys could run their own program, or edit what came down.</p>
<p>Union dues  = ~$1000 a year<br />
The value of having legal representation with your employer without having to pay for it yourself = priceless</p>
<p>Sorry for the plug for the union label Scott, I couldn&#8217;t resist <img src='http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/site/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Keith Hampson</title>
		<link>http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2007/02/online_multimed.html/comment-page-1#comment-14984</link>
		<dc:creator>Keith Hampson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://annahein.com/2007/02/online_multimed.html#comment-14984</guid>
		<description>Scott,
Thanks for this.
The notion of rationalizing education and introducing modern (industrial) models to the creation and distribution of education has been around for over a decade now. To my surpise, this logic - which has its obvious advantages to the current &#039;cottage&#039; model - has made little headway. An early writer on this subject is Eli Noam, a communications scholar (actually, I&#039;ve found that many of the people that originally identified the &#039;irrational&#039; quality of e-learning were from the fields of media and communications). You can find work by Dr. Noam at
http://www.asis.org/annual-96/noam.html
Keith
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Scott,<br />
Thanks for this.<br />
The notion of rationalizing education and introducing modern (industrial) models to the creation and distribution of education has been around for over a decade now. To my surpise, this logic &#8211; which has its obvious advantages to the current &#8216;cottage&#8217; model &#8211; has made little headway. An early writer on this subject is Eli Noam, a communications scholar (actually, I&#8217;ve found that many of the people that originally identified the &#8216;irrational&#8217; quality of e-learning were from the fields of media and communications). You can find work by Dr. Noam at<br />
<a href="http://www.asis.org/annual-96/noam.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.asis.org/annual-96/noam.html</a><br />
Keith</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

