Re: Open Books and XML

["Ian Bicking" <bickiia@earlham.edu>]

> 1. Just how do you expect the content of these textbooks to be produced? If
> "Open Source" textbooks were a viable option economically, wouldn't we have
> seen them develop with the Xerox machine, much as "black line masters" has
> developed into a market for some kinds of worksheets. There are reasons why
> free and Open Source code has developed in the software world. What
> analogous reasons will motivate writers to write high-quality textbooks for
> free? Robert's earlier comment that "On the textbook side all we have to do
> select a set of topics,
> create an outline for each and get people to fill in the pieces" seems to
> treat as easy the piece of the work that seems to me much harder than
> picking XML or some other publishing standard.

Making a high-quality textbook doesn't seem much harder than 
making a high-quality program.  Textbooks often come out of 
academic circles which share hackers' desire to spread information 
freely.  It at least seems possible that textbook-writing sorts of 
people will want to participate in something like this.  The 
corporatizing of acadamia doesn't help any...

As I think about it more, the similarities with programming circles 
go further.  I think much of the reason for the large amount of 
volunteer effort that has gone into free software is that there are lots 
of individual programmers with lots of ideas that they want to 
express and share.  Normal routes don't allow them to do this -- 
they become subsumed by teams and corporations.  This is why 
there are so many people who program for a living all day, then 
come home and program some more in a volunteer fashion.

Similarly, in teaching circles there are lots of teachers who have 
interesting and novel ideas and a passion for their work and 
subject.  However, there are few outlets for them to produce and 
share work with others.  Yes, they'd have to teach all day then 
come home and think about teaching more.  But isn't this fairly 
common among (good) teachers already?



The current situation with computers is quantitatively different than 
the situation with Xerox machines -- but I think it crosses an 
important threshold that changes the effect qualitatively.  Texts 
contained on computers can be distributed more easily (via the 
internet and CDs) and, as importantly, can be modified.  More than 
price, modification seems one of the more interesting possibilities 
of Open Source textbooks.

In particular, any subject will be related to other subjects, requiring 
some background knowledge.  When this intructional information 
already exists it can be included in the new textbook with little 
effort, while still representing the related knowledge thoughtfully 
(presumably because the original author considered the subject of 
primary importance where to the secondary author it is an aside).

Of course, including it verbatim wouldn't make a good textbook.  
The information should be refocused to the subject at hand.  
Modification is necessary, but it's all that's necessary, while in 
normal practice it would need to be rewritten.

Keeping a textbook current is also a large project.  Many a good 
textbook has fallen by the wayside because it wasn't maintained 
by its authors.  Just as with free software, a good book can be 
maintained regardless of the will of the authors, reducing the 
redundancy of effort and increasing the quality of textbook offerings.

> 2. As regards printed texts ... how cheap is it really to print a text from
> CD? I use 3 cents per page *variable cost* (that is, not amortizing the
> printer itself) in my work calculations, and I'd guess about a nickel a page
> counting the wear and tear on the printer. This makes a 200 page book cost
> about $10 to print in unbound form, in black and white only ... plus labor
> costs. Add in labor for printing, labor and materials for binding, and the
> higher cost of color if that's needed or desired ... and I really doubt
> there's much future in schools printing copies of their own texts.

You're right, printing texts on-site isn't a good idea.  However, a 
textbook that is freely redistributable can be printed by any knock-
off press that cares to put the effort into it.  It commoditizes the 
printing process, which reduces the price dramatically.  I think 
Cheapbytes is great... I'd love to see something similar for books.  I 
think it would be quite possible.

There was talk for a while of FSF setting up something to print free 
books (technical documentation in this case) at cost, or close.  I 
don't know what will come of this -- there seems to be commitment 
by the FSF to do more about documentation, but it might not end 
up extending to the actual printing process.  But if this matures in 
that direction, maybe there'd be a place for textbooks too...?  Or at 
least a model upon which to base it.

And of course it's still possible to read something on the computer, 
which isn't a very complete solution, but is something.

> The focus I've seen on this list up to now has been the development of
> software that uses the strengths of computers as interactive, responsive
> tools to promote learning. This idea seems to abandon the real strengths of
> computers, instead chasing illusory, or at best marginal, financial savings
> by using computers as printing presses and hoping the content gets created
> by people who don't need to be paid for the difficult work of writing well.
> Perhaps we should, in this area, concentrate on ways that computer-based
> text presentation can improve learning (e.g., by including the links that
> the printing method requires one to omit).

Information distribution is something that computers have shown 
themselves to be very good at.  Not just the internet -- under every 
proprietary piece of information there is a computer, even if it turns 
into paper at some later point in the process.  I think a direction 
that has a lot of possibilities, though like anything it will take a lot 
of dedication to get it started and get past the initial skepticism, 
lack of interest, lack of results, and everything else that makes a 
person doubt.



--
Ian Bicking <bickiia@earlham.edu>