What will university and college campus bookstores look like in five (or ten) years?

At University of Manitoba, students will be arriving on campus in about a month. The start of a school year is not defined so much by increased traffic in the hallways as the incredibly long lines in the bookstore. When I was at Red River College, lines would run out the bookstore and several hundred meters down the hallway. Students would complain about having to wait 6+ hours to get their textbooks. Students without texts were significantly hampered – all courses required a text (that has changed somewhat as many courses now use at least some online resources). The pilgrimage to the bookstore was a necessity.

For many students, textbook costs form a large portion of their overall education expense. It’s not unusual to see a text priced at $200+. Publishers justify the high costs due to the input effort of peer review, additional online resources, and limited print runs. However, many content-centric aspects of society have been disrupted by technology: newspapers, music and movie industries, and peer review journals.

Are campus bookstores next?

The textbook publishing field is rapidly changing. Flat World Knowledge makes textbooks freely available online…and charges for physical copies. Their textbooks are open, which means: “Use our books “as-is” or utilize our open-source license and online tools to modify the book for your class. Go nuts. Turn our books into your books”.

Google has been rather busy digitizing books. Currently, university-level textbooks aren’t the main focus of this project, but that may change as a result of Google’s recent agreement with publishers and authors. Most university/college texts are small-run editions with a focused audience. This limited focus is exactly what makes this market so attractive to publishers like Pearson and Wiley. A specialized market, where existing publishers have formed relationships with faculty and bookstores, can prove to be a difficult competitive climate for new entrance.

How has Amazon impacted traditional campus bookstores? I’m not sure. The lineups at bookstores in fall suggest the impact has been minimal. Many specialized texts are not available at Amazon, and even when they are, learners may find a visit to the bookstore more practical (particular in terms of time for getting a book – recent purchases I’ve made through Amazon.ca have resulted in at minimum at three week wait).

Ebook readers – like Kindle and Sony Reader – may significantly impact campus bookstores. While Kindle is not yet available in Canada, Sony Reader may serve as an important textbook replacement tool. Imagine a learner with only a Reader in her backpack, rather than a stack of textbooks. Chiropractors may be disappointed, but the convenience of ebooks is a significant draw. The comfort curve for using ebook readers has been high for me. I like turning pages. I like highlighting and making notes in the margins. Yes, I can do this with an ebook reader, but it’s cumbersome.

Publishers are trying to increase their value-added resources with ready-made quizzes, powerpoint presentations for educators, and even digital chapters that educators can directly add into an LMS. Where does this leave the bookstore? Is it possible for publishers to completely by-pass bookstores and sell direct to faculty and learners?

Libraries as an example?

Libraries have been struggling to find relevance in today’s digital world. For the most part, they have succeed in reinventing themselves. Libraries are no longer about books. They are about information access. About research and literacy development. Add wireless and Starbucks, and suddenly you have a modern university library. The content of a library (books, journals, archives) has been augmented by the experience of a library (support, socialization, access, information literacy development).

Can bookstores undergo a similar transformation? At first glance, bookstores are more precarious than libraries in this regard. Libraries have always offered more than books. A learner often has a long term relationship with a campus library. I’m not sure that’s the case with bookstores. I visit U of M’s libraries far more frequently than I visit bookstores. I have periodic and specific needs of the bookstore (books, a computer, pens, paper).

Mainstream booksellers have made some transitions. McNally Robinson and Chapters offer comfortable reading spaces, restaurants, and coffee shops. The emphasis is again on the experience augmenting the content.

Where does this leave us?

Openness, digitization, and new formats (ebooks) are formidable change pressures impacting campus bookstores. Most bookstores already offer far more than books: clothing, computers, magazines, etc. Can these alternative revenue options replace potential revenue misplacement due to digital texts?

I certainly don’t have answers on this…and would appreciate comments or opinions in this regard. I’ll offer the following as possible future scenarios for bookstores:

• Bookstores continue to retain their on campus presence, but their product mix will shift from textbooks to technology.
• Bookstores reduce their campus presence, resulting in a more “boutique-like” venue. Sales are reduced as more learners purchase ebooks or use open/free online resources/texts.
• Bookstores disappear, as the impact of digital books and new reading devices (and publishers partner directly with ebook reader manufacturers, reducing reliance on bookstores as distributors).

What do you think? Do bookstores have a future on campuses? Or are they at the early stages of a long, slow, irreversible decline?

I delivered a presentation today on Google – things educators should be thinking about. The recording is here.

What’s the value of a particular computer? Very little. I, like most people, spend time with various computers and mobile devices. The real value for me is the data that I generate and the people with whom I interact.

When I first started using computers (the Commodore Pet), storage capacity on computers was almost zero. I used cassette tapes to store games. When I accessed a terminal, I would load my game (or data) from the tape (each data source was manually recorded by keeping track of where on the cassette counter it was to be found. For example, when I wanted to play Miner, I’d have to fast forward to 47). The specific computer wasn’t important. Any terminal would do.

When I first purchased a desktop with an internal drive – 40 MB! – I was able to stop swapping disks (I was using 5 1/4 disks by this time). Computing and data was tied to a particular machine. The computer became “my” computer, not “any” computer that I would use to load data. Since that time, I have been confined to the view of the device as rather consequential. My desktop has family pictures, my laptop has work-related files, email, and my Mac book pro has some useful programs only available to the Mac elite.

I find it all rather irritating. I want to have access to everything I need, all the time.

So, for a personal project, I’ve declared 2009 as the year of the cloud. My goal: to be device neutral by the end of 2009. Any data accessible in any device from anywhere.

The importance of device-neutral personal productivity is evident to anyone who spends time traveling. Instead of lugging around the MacBook, wouldn’t an HP Mini be much more comfortable? I’m preparing for an online workshop – The Mobile Professor – and many of the concerns of data security, productivity, data access, and internet connectivity, are barriers.

I think we’re far enough along in the development of web applications that it’s reasonable to move from the computer to the cloud.

I’ve played briefly with MobileMe and Live Mesh. I’m not convinced that these are the solution yet…but I’ll spend more time with each and get a sense of what works, what doesn’t, what’s needed, etc. Similarly, I’ll try and formalize my use of Zoho and Google docs…evaluating whether I should use a loosely structured network of tools (i.e. PLEs) or more formal systems that provide synchronization across different computers.

I don’t want to use a flash drive for sharing documents and accessing resources. I want this to all be automatic. If I use a computer in a public library, I want changes and updates I make to my files to be automatically updated for access on any future device. Google docs does this…but I want it for more than just my documents. I want every file I use to be available from any device as long as I have internet access (I’m assuming internet access, but I’m well aware of the problems when traveling).

When I get a new computer, the typical setup is predicable: Firefox, Skype, Personal Brain, Office, CMAP, Audacity, iTunes, etc. For many programs, the value is my account, not the computer. For example, I can use my skype profile on any computer. As long as the software is installed, I have access to my friend network. Reliance on a particular computer is a bit of a pain – especially for PersoanlBrain and software that doesn’t enable online work/saving/sharing. Not sure how I’ll overcome those concerns yet, but I’ll document my experience here.

The Office suite is a bigger challenge. I have files confined to my primary laptop that I don’t synch across devices. I’ve played with office live, which allows me to upload and share word files with others. Still not convinced…and I’m not enough of a fan of Google docs to make that my primary source for files.

The biggest challenge that I think I’ll personally face is transitioning email. I’m still a user of Outlook (the primary reason I abandoned my Macbook Pro as my primary computer). I like gmail, but the lack of folders for categorization is a big challenge.

Security is another concern I need to consider.

Let the year of the cloud begin…

A key discussion this week centres on the nature of knowledge: what is it? How is it created? How is it validated?

Content-centric education

A content-centric view of learning suggests that learning is a by-product of interacting with, or mastering, some type of content. For example, a student enrolled in a course on learning theories is generally expected to read the prescribed text, journal articles, and more recently, listen to podcasts or view videos on YouTube. Evaluation is then often based on how well a student understands the content. Through papers, group work, or exams, students display the quality of their learning against the concepts presented by texts, readings, podcasts, and videos.

But is this really learning? Common definitions of learning go something like this: learning is a long-term change in behaviour, thought, or attitudes. How long does this apparent change last in many instances? I’ll use my experiences as a learner in a masters program, with the assumption that it is in some way reflective of what others have experienced. I didn’t immediately recognize the value of many of the courses: learning theory, leadership, organizational learning, research methods, and so on. I did well on my papers, but the transformation impact was quite limited. The only courses in which I have substantial recall are those that reflected my interests at the time. Entire swaths of other courses suffer from scorched memory syndrome.

Was there any value in those courses where my memory is weak? I’m not sure. In some cases, the value of learning was not the content, but rather indirect lessons such as “when I teach, I vow not to do what professor X did. What a jerk”. Overall, I found the greatest value in the experience of interacting with other learners – throwing out ideas, receiving thoughtful critiques, and revising my views. Even then, I often don’t remember the content of the exchange. What did I learn then? I learned that ideas are shared, not solitary things. Ideas arise through discourse, not through individual thinking alone. I learned meta-principles such as the importance of thinking clearly, of considering the views of others, of valuing diversity of thought, of the need for reflection, and so on. Instead of learning content, I learned the process of learning and the value of being a learner.

Contributing and Participating

Our discussion of knowledge this week is a crash course in a similar process. Contributing to Wikipedia is a statement about knowledge. Is knowledge a hallowed thing? Is knowledge the sole creation of experts? Can a network of people – who may individually have a spotty grasp of the subject – create something of value? A few comments in the discussion forum this week reflect a reluctance to edit the lifelong learning entry in Wikipedia. At root, I believe, is a view that knowledge is created by “them” – experts. When we edit Wikipedia, we are not tearing down the pillars of expertise. Instead, we are suggesting that expertise and nuanced understanding of knowledge is distributed across a network of people. Each with a part, none with the whole.

What’s the impact?

Wikipedia, as detailed in earlier course readings, is not perfect. It’s far from perfect. But it’s an imperfection that is explicitly declared on many pages with small banners offering some variation of “this article is not supported with citations” or “the authority of this article is disputed”, etc. These self-deprecating expressions suggest to readers that all information is suspect to some degree. Books, encyclopedias, and journal articles rarely provide such humble expressions of self-worth. Their calling to readers is one of urging memorization and acquisition, not of engagement and creation. Ok, that statement might be a bit harsh. When placed in the hands of able educators, the great knowledge artifacts of history (books, articles, concepts) are an invitation to engagement…but when placed into a systematized education model – such as predominately exist western countries, they become objects to be acquired and then used as a premise for testing and evaluation.

A second weakness exists in content-centric views of learning. The growth of information is tremendous. Most people are aware of this through personal experiences with email, blogs, online news sources, YouTube, and Facebook. The growth if information is not confined to personal communication. Kevin Boyack has been working in the field of scientometrics, tracking the rapid growth of scientific articles and publications. Fields exhibit information growth at different levels. Technology-based fields experience more rapid growth than fields such as culinary arts. In general, however, it’s safe to assert that information growth is continually rendering parts of our knowledge obsolete. So that course in emerging technologies that you took in late 2008 will be partly obsolete by 2009. The content that you mastered has a shelf-life. The obsolescence of information (what we connect to form/grow knowledge) has been termed as “the half-life of knowledge”. This refers to the amount of time before half the knowledge in a field becomes obsolete. When information changes rapidly, what we know is less important than our capacity for ongoing learning.

Looking at the above paragraph, I should perhaps clarify how I use terms like information and knowledge. Information is stuff that hasn’t been meaningfully connected. For example, the annual statistics about crime rates in a certain community is information. The percentage of Canadian households with broadband access is information. Knowledge is personally apprehended or connected information. I have knowledge about crimes statistics when I have connected information in a certain way (or pattern). For example, if the community being considered has a high rate of poverty and drug abuse, driven by factors such as low unemployment, I have connected numerous information elements to form knowledge about crime statistics.

Back to the focus of this post. Shifting from a content-centric view of learning to an interaction and networked view of learning has significant implications for teaching and learning. First, it suggests that content has value to the degree that it fosters interaction, reflection, and conversation. In itself, a book is not a thing to be memorized but an artefact to facilitate questioning and discussion. Learning is not found in absorbing content, but in creating it.

To those who are reluctant to tackle a Wikipedia edit, I encourage you to lay aside the view of content consumption of learning, and make the attempt (even if it’s only adding a citation to the lifelong learning entry, or smoothing out choppy sentences). When information is fluid, others will come by and correct, extend, and enlarge on our work. The value, after all, is not in the content found in the entry, but the process by which it was written and will continue to be updated.

We’ve been discussing personal learning environments (PLEs) in an online course I’m currently teaching with Dave Cormier – Introduction to Emerging Technologies for Learning. Newer tools and concepts have a way of consuming enormous amounts of time on definitional tasks: what is a PLE? Is it a set of tools or a concept? How does it differ from a learning management system (LMS) like Moodle? Can a PLE include people? What about books? My office is a physical space with a particular configuration of books, articles, and resources. It sure feels like a PLE to me. But I guess that depends how one answers the first question: What is a PLE?I’m not going to bother with a definition – there are plenty of readings available in this regard: Graham Atwell’s 2006 paper, Scott Leslie’s collection of diagrams, or the history of PLEs.

Instead, I would like to talk briefly about differences between the spirit of PLEs and the design of educational institutions, and why PLEs will have almost no traction (beyond a few early adopters) in the current education system.

A bit about PLEs

PLEs owe their existence to the development of technologies that focus on social interaction and collaboration. These technologies generally fall into the category of the read/write web (or terms that end in 2.0 such as web 2.0, elearning 2.0, learning 2.0). The read/write web facilitates a control shift. Instead of passively consuming content online, everyone can potentially contribute. In the process, we have been blessed with Wikipedia, blogs, podcasting, iReporter, and Ze Frank.

Since early 2000, these tools have continued to develop, spawning interactive virtual worlds like Second Life, integrated suites like Facebook, and hyper-fragmented conversational tools like Twitter. As the read/write web and social technologies developed, friction became apparent between advocates of new technologies and those who advocated more traditional views of publishing and authority. This fissure gave us Andrew Keen, Michael Gorman, and Robert “I embrace every new tool and call it revolutionary because I have an overly developed excitatory gland” Scoble.

Actually, it gave us more. Much more. The read/write web is a line in the sand between traditional views of expertise and the potential creative activity of the masses. Can a group of amateurs produce what experts do? With wikipedia, the answer is a partial yes. With news and media, the answer is also a partial yes (consider where many established news channels are now getting some of their video and news stories – youtube, blogs, amateur recorded video of disasters, accidents, etc). The power shift that questions the value of expertise also appears in education: can a network of learners provide quality learning experiences similar to an expert educator?With this very short overview, the development of PLEs seems somewhat natural. Why not apply user-control to education? Why should I, as a learner, have all of my educational content locked in an LMS? Why can’t I develop my own learning network and store my content, conversations, and ideas in a space/network/environment that I control? Ah, such lofty idealistic questions!

PLEs are great. They’re just completely incompatible with the existing education system.

This thing called education

To understand why PLEs are antithetical to the current education system, it’s important to consider how education has developed and why it has taken the particular shape it currently has. In Professionalization, Scientific Expertise, and Elitism: A Sociological Perspective, Evetts, Mieg, and Felt suggest that expertise has as a significant sociological component. Power, authority, and validity all play a role. Focus on accountability, audits, and performance targets are now heavily intertwined with professionalism (p. 112). Structures of control – such as education – are not solely about knowledge and the interaction of learners with academics. Education is a system based in a sociological context. Or, more bluntly, there is “no fundamental difference between the pursuit of knowledge and that of power” (p. 116).

A PLE, in contrast, is a tool/process/concept that addresses the needs of learners. It is not, to date, integrated with the power structures of society. It is only – and perhaps even honorably – about knowledge. It’s entirely possible that an integrated power structure can be built at a grassroots level, thereby developing the capacity of PLEs to replace existing LMS tools (which again, find their strength in existing power structures of control and data organization under the umbrella of the institution). This transition will not, however, occur without a corresponding power shift that emphasizes networks as an alternative to hierarchical curricular control structures that begin with industry and government setting research agendas and often influencing standards and curricular needs.

A second component, based partly in the discussion of power highlighted above, stems from the role of educational institutions in society. In Educators and Expertise, Amirault and Branson offer a quick overview of the development of education:

• Ancient period: expertise as the attainment of traits/virtues fostered by high levels of discourse with others
• Universities: intellectual development based on a systematized curriculum of seven liberal arts. Faculty and learners were involved in high levels of discourse around key subject areas. Expertise and reputation were related to both the institution where one studied and the faculty members providing instruction. Only a very small portion of the population attained doctorates.
• Craft Guilds: these existed as an alternative to the more academic focus of universities, providing training in trades.
• The modernization of education: during the industrial revolution, education transitioned from a personal relationship between faculty member and learner to a systematized model of large instructional classes and numerous teachers (p. 75).

As society became increasingly complex, education became more structured. Polymaths were replaced by specialists. New views of learning – based on behaviourism – resulted in the development of systems of curriculum creation (programmed instruction and the development of instructional design). Technology grew in prominence, with early uses supporting the move to increased control and standardization. Political developments on “accountability” in education has added to the systematization of education over the last several decades.

Education – moving from the high ancient ideals of developing better people to the development of employees for corporations – has experienced continual pressure to produce products that can be measured.The systematization of education is driven by the sociological and power discussions of the last century. Education has ceased to be about the individual learner (the early university model) to being about the existing power allocation of society (today’s model as a by product of industrial techniques applied to education).

As a result, it makes perfect sense that LMS are popular. LMS’ speak the language of the current power structure in education: control, accountability, manageability.

PLEs, in contrast, are concerned with individuals and personal learning – at least a partial return to ancient education models. Most discussions of PLEs address the individual learning opportunities they afford…but fail to move into a discussion of the reasons why they are still fringe tools. And will continue to be so until power relationships change.

This week, I look briefly at classroom response systems (or iclickers) for use in university level courses, concept maps as a tool to measure student learning, and a report on mobile use for teaching and learning.

The presentation is available here.

Audio only is below

[display_podcast]

Periodically, the LTC exerts enormous peer pressure on academics to present their work to the U of Manitoba community (and beyond). Earlier this week, we had the pleasure of an online guest lecture by Martin Weller. Dr. Weller is from the Open University in UK. He is actively involved in evaluating the role of emerging technologies in the teaching and learning process.

The recording of his presentation is now available:  SocialLearn: Learning about new wasy of learning

I’m traveling and delivering a few presentations next week, so I’ve posted the review of a few articles a few days early.

This week, I review an article on the history of instructional technology,  preparing for an unknown future, and instituitional diffusion of elearning.

The presentation can be accessed here.

Audio only is below

I’ve posted my second presentation of random readings and research findings (this is the audio and slide version with articles titles and citations). This week, we explore research methodologies, old advice for new researchers, and the data, information, knowledge, wisdom  hierarchy…

As always, comments are appreciated.

Audio only file is here (see multimedia version link above):

[display_podcast]

In my ongoing quest to try and situate this blog as something of (potential) value and interest to higher education faculty, I’ve decided to focus more on emerging research findings (and theorizing) relating to the use of technology in the educational process.

I’ve posted week one’s presentation here. Please let me know if this type of review of journal articles (and random stuff) is of value.

Audio only file is here:

[display_podcast]