The article Online Literacy is a Lesser Kind where Mark Bauerlein asks us to “restrain the digitizing of all liberal-arts classrooms” reminds me of one of the oldest jokes in the book.  You know the one – a man walks into a doctor’s office and raises his arm above his head and says “Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do this.”  The doctor, of course, says, “Well,don’t do that!” Not exactly helpful.

The problem with Bauerlein and so many like him is that he’s good at identifying a problem and poor at figuring out the solution.  With all due respect to Bauerlein, Nicholas Carr and the growing cadre of people (all much smarter and better educated than me) that claim that the greatest communication platform the world has ever seen is responsible for the dumbing-down of its users (and yes, I know that “dumbing” isn’t a word), I humbly suggest they jump off the bandwagon and look for a more practical solution.  Why?  Because people are not going to stop consuming copious quantities of written information via the internet any time soon. And because I have evidence that they’re wrong.

At Spreed Inc. we continue to believe in the power of the computer.  Rather than taking a step backward as the Luddite literati suggest, we understand that we’ve only just touched the surface, potential-wise, of computing and the internet.  There are issues to be sure. We continue to adhere to a medieval artifact when presenting written text on electronic devises, a mistake that Spreed has wagered would eventually be corrected.  But, in a relatively short period of time we’ve proven that speed and comprehension can be significantly improved (and improved over traditional paper-based, hard-copy reading) when delivering text to the user in the right format. Six young guys in an office over a one-year period accomplished this.  Imagine what some greater minds than us could accomplish here!

Other problems identified by Bauerlein may be worth discussion.  Is the internet leading to a bastardization of the English language and does it matter?  But he doesn’t address this and instead focuses on the absurd claim that the computer “conspires against certain intellectual habits requisite to liberal-arts learning”. Really? Nothing in here about how the internet allows for greater access to diverse ideas and more efficient and effective research?

There’s so much that is wrong with Bauerlein’s article, I’m not exactly sure what to criticize.  For someone blasting the academic capabilities of today’s youth, he sure takes some liberties with logic and fact.  I suggest he re-read Nielsen’s studies and look at the sorts of “reading” Nielsen was referring to (search pages, websites, etc. – not academic prose).  Of course they scan this material!  Furthermore, somehow “screen reading” (which he also cleverly changes to “fast scanning” and “screen scanning”) is responsible for 41% of professors labeling students “not well prepared”? How so? And what of the 48% labeled “somewhat well prepared”? Can we assume them all to be hard-copy reading Amish-folk who managed to make it to university having avoided the computer?  Finally, an academic of Bauerlein’s quality should know better than to cite 10 year old research on web reading when advances in content and the reading devices (flat panel monitors, iPhones, etc.) have rendered that research out of date.  I could go on.

Bauerlein is a Luddite with an apparent agenda to shock and sell books.  The title of his latest book The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don’t Trust Anyone Under 30) says it all.  Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised.  Historically, every generation hears these fear-mongering insults from previous generations, and I think history shows that each generation has proven to be better and more innovative than the last. Fortunately, access to quality content on the internet will improve and so will the ways we digest that information.  I’m doing my part to further that end and won’t allow Baurlein or Carr to stand in the way.
 

There was an interesting article in yesterday’s LA Time’s that gives a timely perspective on the proliferation of e-textbooks in the student market. The crux of the argument is that e-textbooks, although half the price of print textbooks, may actually not be cheaper in the long run. Students can usually return their print textbooks for 50% of what they initially paid and 3/4 of students, recently surveyed, said they would not read e-textbooks on their computer and would instead print them out. Therefore in the long run, the price of e-textbooks may actually be more expensive.

I am going to disagree with the general thesis here and say that e-textbooks are in fact cheaper, however the publishing industry needs to be innovative about how they package and distribute these products. Firstly, I am going to disagree with the fact that students can return their books for 50% of the face value. I am not too far removed from my university years to remember going back to the campus bookstore with a bundle of textbooks cradled in my arms hoping to come home with a nice sum of cash. Year after year I would be dissapointed by the measly amount of money I was refunded and in some cases the amount was so negligable that I chose to keep the textbook. Therefore to base an argument on the fact that students are receiving 50% of the money they spend on physical textbooks back seems flawed.

On another note educational publishers, like Taylor and Francis, are becoming very innovative in the ways that they are packaging their textbooks for students. Students can now pick and choose which chapters of the textbook they want to buy instead of forking out $1000 for the entire book. Many professors will only assign a handful of chapters as requird reading for a given semester and by only buying the chapters they need, students can greatly reduce the money they spend on textbooks.

Finally I need to address the fact that 3/4 of unviersity students said they do not feel comfortable reading textbooks on their computer and instead would opt to print them out. There are two points that need to be made here. Firstly, as e-readers become widely available (Amazon may actually be creating a Kindle specifically designed for students … think easy highlighting and in-line note taking) students will find that they only need to pay for the upfront cost of the reader and that reading using tools like the Kindle are actually even more comfortable than reading on printed paper. This will greatly reduce the cost of going to the copy shop and printing out an entire book. However, publishers must not disregard the fact that 75% of students said that they would not feel comfortable reading on a computer screen. Most students in the early days will not buy Kindles and the publishers and e-book distributors need to find ways of making students more comfortable reading on their screens if they want to make e-books economically attractive. This has been a major topic of focus for us here at Spreed. We are dedicated to the field of eye science to understand how the end-user receives information from a monitor. We have developed a very unique way of displaying text on a screen so that students may find it far easier to read their textbooks on their computer instead of printing them out. Publishers must search to find ways of presenting their textbooks on computer screens in a way that students will not feel the need to run to the copy shop.

The bottom line is that the article really only gives one side of the story and does not look too far into the future. The trends are pretty clear and as publishers and students become more comfortable with this changing industry, we will find that e-textbooks are far cheaper and superior in quality to the printed textbooks of the paste. However, please take a look at the LA Time’s article that can be found below and come back here to leave your thoughts on this topic.

E-textbooks may not be cheaper than printer ones, report says: LA Times

A sharply critical report released Monday asserts that commercial publishers are going about the digital textbook revolution the wrong way. Commercial e-textbooks are no cheaper than hard-copy editions when you take into account that students can sell print books back to the bookstore for half the cover price, according to the report from a national coalition of student public interest research groups. And restrictions on printing and online access make commercial e-books unfeasible for many students, the report said.

There has been a lot of speculation recently regarding the future of e-books and whether they are going to be the next big thing. What we do know at this point is that Amazon has sold 240, 000 Kindles. Given these numbers, Techcrunch’s  Erick Schonfield suggested that Citi analyst Mark Mahaney update his most recent projections for the future of the Kindle (and to some extent e-books in general). Mahaney’s new numbers suggest that Kindle sales estimates should be around 378,000 for this year, 934,000 next year, and 4.4 million in 2010. These are not numbers to scoff at. If Mahaney’s projections are correct the Kindle will be a $1 billion for Amazon by 2010.

The big question for me is that even though these numbers are high, can e-books really win over the mass-audience. Two recent articles, one from Naomi Alderman and another from Peter Conrad of the UK’s Guardian give light to the different sides of this debate. Naomi on one hand advocates the move toward e-books. She is fed up with the piles of books overwhelming her apartment and finds the Kindle easy to use and convenient. Peter on the other hand stuggles to accept that e-books are the future. He argues that reading ebooks actually left him feeling alienated from books he used to love growing up. These two perspectives highlight the seperate camps very well and it is hard to say whether either one represents the mass public at this point.

I personally do not think that we are going to see a sudden move to e-books in the next couple of years. The cost of an e-book reader is still a large up front investment when compared to the one off price of a paperback. What I will say is that in certain segments, where people have to buy large amounts of books that they must use on a regular basis, the student market for example, we will see a fairly substantial adoption of e-book technology. Students can offset the cost of the reader by only purchasing individual chapters of textbooks as they need them, thus reducng their overall spending on textbooks for years to come. This makes perfect sense and I see the student (as they often do) leading the proliferation . The only hurdle I see holding students back is the inability to easily highlight text. Yes, you are able to click and drag, but nothing will ever replace the relaxing sensation of passing a hightlighter over a line of text.  

This is going to be a very interesting industry to watch over the next 5-10 years and if the new projections are correct, Amazon is very well positioned to ride the wave (as they usually are). See Mark Mahaney’s numbers below:

Motoko Rich of the New York Times recently released the first of what will be a series of articles addressing online reading and the movement away from traditional forms of reading (i.e. books, newspapers, journals). I won’t go into a huge rant here as the article is quite lengthy and very detailed. But to summarize the debate; our youth are moving towards reading online much more often than picking up books. Some people believe that this is in fact reducing attention spans, comprehension and is in effect having a negative impact on students grades at school. The other side of the debate states that the internet is actually a healthy source of reading material. Online readers are able to take in much more information from a wide array of sources and can engage in ‘conversations’ about content rather than being an empty vessle that is imparted knowledge. My personal belief is that online reading is actually making us smarter, but the key is to get to the right information and not get off track (which can happen very easily on the internet). What Spreed is trying to do is allow everyone to blast through the large amount of information found on the net, while at the same time increasing comprehension. I would not agree that comprehension necessarily is lower when reading a traditional book, but numerous studies have shown that the traditonal form factor is not conducive to ‘smart’ reading. New technologies, especially those found online can definitely overcome these barriers. I say, don’t be afraid to change the status quo, but always be weiry of where we are heading.

Motoko’s Article can be found here 

Below is a link to a fantastic article about Spreed written by Michael Tipper a professional speed reading coach based out of the UK. Michael sums up spreed perfectly and has put together an instructional video on how to read using clusters.

The educational component of Spreed is very important as it is a departure from the way we have all been taught to read. Although you may not get it the first time, the learning curve is very high and in no time you will begin realizing the advantages of reading at high speeds and comprehending/retaining more of the article. Here is an exerpt from his article.

Speed Reading Faster Comprehension Photo-Reading Memory | Michael Tipper MichaelonSpeedReading.com

This chunking or grouping of words is one of the fundamental principles of becoming a more effective reader (or speed reader) and this software does that automatically for you.

Now when you try this out for yourself you may find it feels a little strange.That is because you are not used to taking in words in this fashion, however with a little perserverence you will get used to it and you will start to reap the benefits immediately.

Here is the instructional video Michael put together: