Advertisement

eTextbooks: Challenges to Pedagogy, Law, and Policy

  • Yoni Har Carmel
  • Shai Olsher
  • Niva Elkin-Koren
  • Michal Yerushalmy
Chapter
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series book series (CULS, volume 17)

Abstract

In the world of print, textbooks were the most important tools for dictating what and how student learn in schools. The introduction of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), however, gave rise to eTextbooks – a multi-modal, hardware mediated, and connectable, curriculum material. Indeed, the emergence of eTextbook creates fascinating opportunities for teaching and learning, but at the same time, it poses new challenges for both educational practices and policy making by revolutionizing the traditional pedagogical practices, classroom culture and the textbook publishing industry. These new challenges require rethinking and reexamining the appropriateness of the institutional and legal norms which govern the use and authorship of textbooks. This paper identifies the new challenges introduced by eTextbooks, and offers some insights on the policy and legal implications.

Keywords

eTextbooks ICT Curriculum materials Publishing industry Authorship Interactive environment Quality assurance Learning in a monitored environment Surveillance Collaborative writing 

Bibliography

  1. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Sep. 9, 1886, as last revised at Paris on Jul. 24, 1971, 1161 U.N.T.S. 30.Google Scholar
  2. Brickell, J., Kanuth, M., Freeman, V., Latshaw, S., & Larson, C. (2006). Learning objects: Resources for instruction. Clinical Laboratory Science, 19(3), 184–187.Google Scholar
  3. Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968).Google Scholar
  4. Chazan, D., & Yerushalmy, M. (2014). The future of mathematics textbooks: Ramifications of technological change. In M. Stocchetti (Ed.), Media and education in the digital age: Concepts, assessments, subversions (pp. 63–76). Frankfurt: PL Academic Research.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. E. (2012). Configuring the networked self: Law, code, and the play of everyday practice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Committee of the Central Advisory Board of Education Ministry of Human Resource Development Government of India, Regulatory mechanisms for textbooks and parallel textbooks taught in schools outside the government system. (2005). Available at http://www.teindia.nic.in/Files/Reports/CCR/cabe/Rmtbptb.pdf
  7. Coviello, L., et al. (2014). Detecting emotional contagion in massive social networks. PLoS One, 9(3), e90315.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090315Google Scholar
  8. Data Quality Campaign. (2015). Student data privacy legislation: What happened in 2015, and what is next? Available at: http://dataqualitycampaign.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/09/DQC-Student-Data-Laws-2015-Sept23.pdf
  9. Elkin-Koren, N. (2002). Self-copyright in the information age. Alei Mishpat [Pages of Law], 2, 319–323; 332-end. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
  10. Elkin-Koren, N. (2006). Copyright and competition—from a copy market to a licensing regime. Din Udevarim [English Title: Haifa Law Review], 9(2): 485–549. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
  11. Fletcher, G. (2012). Out of print: Reimagining the K-12 textbook in a digital age. State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA). files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED536747.pdf.
  12. Friesen, N. (2013). The past and likely future of an educational form: A textbook case. Educational Researcher, 42(9), 498–508.Google Scholar
  13. Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., Sabra, H., & Trouche, L. (2016). Collective design of an e-textbook: Teachers’ collective documentation. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19(2–3), 187–203.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-015-9331-xGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuller, B., & Clarke, P. (1994). Raising school effects while ignoring culture? Local conditions and the influence of classroom tools, rules, and pedagogy. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 119–157.Google Scholar
  15. Har Carmel, Y. (2016). Regulating “big data education” in Europe: Lessons learned from the US. Internet Policy Review, 5(1).  https://doi.org/10.14763/2016.1.402
  16. Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A. (2009). Negotiating the “presence of the text”: How might teachers’ language choices influence the positioning of the textbook? In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work (pp. 134–151). New York, NY\Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Herold, B. (2014). Americans worried, uninformed about student data privacy, survey finds, Education Week (January 22).Google Scholar
  18. Ho, J., & Hsu, Y. (2011). Improving the textbook adoption process in Taiwan. International Educational Studies, 4(4), 92–98.Google Scholar
  19. Hylén, J. (2007). Giving knowledge for free: The emergence of open educational resources. Paris: OECD Publishing—Center for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI).Google Scholar
  20. Israel Copyright Act. (2007). L.S.I. 34; Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Sep. 9, 1886, as last revised at Paris on Jul. 24, 1971, 1161 U.N.T.S. 30.Google Scholar
  21. Israel Ministry of Education. (2015). Procedure and processes for instructional material and textbook approval [Hebrew]. Available at: http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Applications/Mankal/EtsMedorim/6/6-3/HoraotKeva/K-2015-9-3-6-3-16.htm
  22. Israel State Education Law, 1953s § 4(d).Google Scholar
  23. Israeli Ministry of Education. (2011). Digital Textbooks [in Hebrew]. Available at: http://sites.education.gov.il/cloud/home/S_D/Pages/sfarim_digitaliim_1.aspx.
  24. Israeli Ministry of Education. (2012). Adapting the educational system to the 21st-century [in Hebrew]. Available at: http://cms.education.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/79B5A8CF-F812-4A63-89BE-3BEFEB887EC5/142454/12.pdf.
  25. Kiderra, I. (2014). Facebook feelings are contagious, study shows. San Diego, CA: UC San Diego News Center (March 12). Available at http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/facebook_feelings_are_contagious_study_showsGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim, J. H., & Jung, H. (2010). South Korean digital textbook project. Computers in the Schools, 27(3–4), 247–265.Google Scholar
  27. Kuhn, M. (2011). Filmnarratologie: Ein erzähltheoretisches Analysemodell [Film Narratology. An Analysis Model of Narrative Theory]. Berlin: De Gruyter. [German].Google Scholar
  28. Love, E., & Pimm, D. (1996). “This is so”: A text on texts. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (Vol. 4, pp. 371–410). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Mahmood, K. (2006). The process of textbook approval: A critical analysis. Bulletin of Education & Research, 28(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  30. Marczak, M. (2013). Selecting an E-(text)book: Evaluation criteria. Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 29–41.Google Scholar
  31. McSherry, C. (2014). Adobe spyware reveals (again) the price of DRM: Your privacy and security (October 7). Available at: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/adobe-spyware-reveals-again-price-drm-your-privacy-and-security
  32. Nissenbaum, H. (2009). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Oakes, J., & Saunders, M. (2002). Access to textbooks, instructional materials, equipment, and technology: Inadequacy and inequality in California’s public schools. Available at http://www.schoolfunding.info/resource_center/legal_docs/California/Williams_Experts_Reports/Williams_Oakes_report_2_InstructMaterials.pdf
  34. Olsher, S., Yerushalmy, M., & Chazan, D. (2016). How might the use of technology in formative assessment support changes in mathematics teaching? For the Learning of Mathematics, 36(3), 11–18.Google Scholar
  35. Pentland, A. (2014). Social physics: How social networks can make us smarter. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  36. Pepin, B., & Haggarty, L. (2001). Mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms: A way to understand teaching and learning cultures. ZDM (Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik)—International Journal of Mathematics Education, 33(5), 158–175.Google Scholar
  37. Polonetsky, J., & Jerome, J. (2014). Student data: Trust, transparency, and the role of consent. Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2628877
  38. Remillard, J. T. (2015). Keeping an eye on the teacher in the digital curriculum race. In M. Bates & Z. Usiskin (Eds.), Digital curricula in school mathematics (pp. 195–204). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  39. Richards, N. (2008). Intellectual privacy. Texas Law Review, 87, 387–445.Google Scholar
  40. Richards, N. (2015). Intellectual privacy: Rethinking civil liberties in the digital age. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Sharples, M., et al. (2012). Innovating pedagogy. Open University Innovation Report, 8. Available at http://www.open.ac.uk/personalpages/mike.sharples/Reports/Innovating_Pedagogy_report_July_2012.pdf
  42. Siminoff, D. (2013). The Etext revolution: Rewriting the textbook model. Internet@Schools (May 1). Available at http://www.internetatschools.com/Articles/Editorial/Features/The-Etext-Revolution-Rewriting-the-Textbook-Model-89288.aspx
  43. Singer, N. (2014). With tech taking over in schools, worries rise. The New York Times (September 14). Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/15/technology/with-tech-taking-over-in-schools-worries-rise.html
  44. Spielvogel, C., & Spielvogel, L. (2010). Speaking the language of digital natives: Role-playing simulations in the communication classroom. Electronic Journal of Communication, 20(1–2). Available at: http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/020/1/020123.html
  45. Stray, C. (1994). Paradigms regained: Towards a historical sociology of the textbook. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
  46. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin.Google Scholar
  47. Trajtenberg, M. (2012). Trajtenberg report: Creating a more just Israeli society (p. 40). Jerusalem: Israel Prime Minister’s Office.Google Scholar
  48. Trouche, L., Drijvers, P., Gueudet, G., & Sacristan, A. I. (2012). In M. A. Clements, A. J. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. J. S. Leung (Eds.),. Third international handbook of mathematics education Technology-driven developments and policy implications for mathematics education (pp. 753–789). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Tulley, M. A. (1985). A descriptive study of the intents of state-level textbook adoption processes. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 7, 289–308.Google Scholar
  50. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (n.d.). Basic learning materials initiative. Available at http://www.unesco.org/education/blm/chap1_en.php
  51. Vargo, J., Nesbit, J. C., Belfer, K., & Archambault, A. (2003). Learning object evaluation: Computer-mediated collaboration and inter-rater reliability. International Journal of Computers & Applications, 25(3), 1–7.Google Scholar
  52. Watt, M. G. (2009). Research on the textbook selection process in the United States of America. IARTEM e-Journal, 2(1). Available at files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED506523.pdf
  53. White House. (2014). Big data: Seizing opportunities, preserving values. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/big_data_privacy_report_5.1.14_final_printpdf
  54. Wiley, D. (2009). Impediments to learning object reuse and openness as a potential solution. Revista Brasileira de Informática na Educação [Brazilian Journal of Information on Education], 17(3). Available at:  https://doi.org/10.5753/rbie.2009.17.03.08Google Scholar
  55. Wiley, D., & Gurrell, S. (2009). A decade of development. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance & e-Learning, 24(1), 11–21.Google Scholar
  56. Williams, R., & Agosto, V. (2012). Missing and shrinking voices: A critical analysis of the Florida textbook adoption policy. In H. Hickman & B. J. Porfilio (Eds.), Politics of the textbook: Critical analysis of the core content areas (pp. 17–40). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  57. Yerushalmy, M. (1999). Guest Editor. Special issue on Learning big ideas: Curriculum reform and the use of technology. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 4(2–3).Google Scholar
  58. Yerushalmy, M. (2012). Will everyone be writing textbooks? (November 9). Available at: http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/6609
  59. Yerushalmy, M., Shternberg, B., & Katriel, H. (2014). VisualMath: Functions & algebra. The University of Haifa. http://visualmath.haifa.ac.il/
  60. Yeung, K. (2016). ‘Hypernudge’: Big data as a mode of regulation by design. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 118–136.Google Scholar
  61. Young, S. (2007). The book is dead: Long live the book. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.Google Scholar
  62. Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75–89.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yoni Har Carmel
    • 1
  • Shai Olsher
    • 2
  • Niva Elkin-Koren
    • 3
  • Michal Yerushalmy
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Haifa, Haifa Center for Law & TechnologyHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.University of Haifa, Faculty of EducationHaifaIsrael
  3. 3.University of Haifa, Faculty of LawHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations