Some folks have asked where they can find alternatives to conventional, commercially published texts about educational psychology. Here are a couple of alternatives:
Seifert, Kelvin & Sutton, Rosemary. (2009). Educational Psychology, 2nd edition. Athens, Georgia, USA: University of Georgia Global Textbook Project. This is a free, open-source textbook suitable for an introductory course about educational psychology for preservice teachers. It can be downloaded in whole or in part at now charge as long as the original source is cited.
The above textbook is also available at the home page for Kelvin Seifert: Educational Psychology, 2nd edition.
You might also look at the following wiki, which contains numerous materials meant to assist in teaching introductory educational psychology. As a wiki, you are free to add or revise any materials posted there:
teachingedpsych wiki . This wiki is sponsored by the "Teaching Educational Psychology Special Interest Group (TEP SIG) of the American Educational Research Association.
Hope this helps!
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Some Differences Between Student-Written and Commercial Textbooks about Educational Psychology
Recently I’ve been doing some content analysis of the Tables of Contents
of various textbooks about introductory educational psychology. I’ve
compared them to Tables of Contents prepared by students who design and
write their own intro ed psych texts instead of purchasing and reading a
commercial text. I still have more analysis to do, but you might be
interested in a few bits of descriptive preliminary results, based on
production of two student-written texts designed by a total of 90 students.
Looking ONLY at the Tables of Contents of either the commercial or the
student-written textbooks, I placed all terms into one of 14 categories.
Here are the categories, in alphabetical order:
assessment (e.g. testing),
basic terms (e.g. "student" or "teacher"),
classroom management,
cognition,
cultural diversity,
family issues,
instructional planning,
motivation,
physical development,
social development,
special education,
professionalism (e.g. teaching as a career), and
theories.
Both student-designed and commercial textbooks referred to all of these
categories, but in different proportions. For example, the student-
designed texts referred to "special education" and "theories" almost twice as often (20-25% vs. 10-15%) as the best-selling commercial text (Woolfolk, 10th edition). On the other hand, the student-designed texts referred to "assessment" and "classroom management" less than half as often (5-10% vs. 15%).
At first glance, these differences may not coincide very well with
stereotypes about the needs of preservice education students in general.
Taken in context, though, they are actually not as implausible as they may
seem. The student textbook-writers were all future teachers of the primary
grades, and were noted for hostility to classic forms of "testing" and
(what they perceived as) "bossy classroom management." For related
reasons, they were very supportive of special education’s emphasis on
individuality in program planning.
If you’re interested, you can see a brief synopsis of this project
(including its procedures) on my website:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~seifert . Scroll down to the article
called "Students' Content Priorities as Authors of Their Own Text about
Educational Psychology". I’m preparing a full report and hope to have it
posted sometime in late January or February—and (God willing) published
somewhere as well.
There are of course more than one way to interpret the information above,
including some that are not especially flattering to students. At a
minimum, though, the preliminary results suggest that students’ priorities
about ed psych may not coincide either with the typical contents of
commercial textbooks, NOR with instructor-held impressions about what
students' priorities "actually" are. This may be a problem when trying to
use a commercial text that aspires to be universally relevant.
As the saying goes, "more research is needed…"
of various textbooks about introductory educational psychology. I’ve
compared them to Tables of Contents prepared by students who design and
write their own intro ed psych texts instead of purchasing and reading a
commercial text. I still have more analysis to do, but you might be
interested in a few bits of descriptive preliminary results, based on
production of two student-written texts designed by a total of 90 students.
Looking ONLY at the Tables of Contents of either the commercial or the
student-written textbooks, I placed all terms into one of 14 categories.
Here are the categories, in alphabetical order:
assessment (e.g. testing),
basic terms (e.g. "student" or "teacher"),
classroom management,
cognition,
cultural diversity,
family issues,
instructional planning,
motivation,
physical development,
social development,
special education,
professionalism (e.g. teaching as a career), and
theories.
Both student-designed and commercial textbooks referred to all of these
categories, but in different proportions. For example, the student-
designed texts referred to "special education" and "theories" almost twice as often (20-25% vs. 10-15%) as the best-selling commercial text (Woolfolk, 10th edition). On the other hand, the student-designed texts referred to "assessment" and "classroom management" less than half as often (5-10% vs. 15%).
At first glance, these differences may not coincide very well with
stereotypes about the needs of preservice education students in general.
Taken in context, though, they are actually not as implausible as they may
seem. The student textbook-writers were all future teachers of the primary
grades, and were noted for hostility to classic forms of "testing" and
(what they perceived as) "bossy classroom management." For related
reasons, they were very supportive of special education’s emphasis on
individuality in program planning.
If you’re interested, you can see a brief synopsis of this project
(including its procedures) on my website:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~seifert . Scroll down to the article
called "Students' Content Priorities as Authors of Their Own Text about
Educational Psychology". I’m preparing a full report and hope to have it
posted sometime in late January or February—and (God willing) published
somewhere as well.
There are of course more than one way to interpret the information above,
including some that are not especially flattering to students. At a
minimum, though, the preliminary results suggest that students’ priorities
about ed psych may not coincide either with the typical contents of
commercial textbooks, NOR with instructor-held impressions about what
students' priorities "actually" are. This may be a problem when trying to
use a commercial text that aspires to be universally relevant.
As the saying goes, "more research is needed…"
Monday, September 8, 2008
Do Ed Psych Students Really Need Textbooks?
This is a companion question to my previous post. If they do, their need might trump any possibility of teaching ed psych without a text. If not, then ed psych instructors ought to be considering alternatives to requiring every student to purchase an expensive text.
It is very likely, of course, that the situation is ambiguous. Some students may learn better from a commercial ed psych text than do others. It is also likely that some--or at least a few--can learn effectively only from such a text. And it is possible that some cannot learn ed psych well by any means at all--textbook or no textbook. Given these complications, what is an ed psych instructor to do?
My suggestions: Explore alternatives gradually, not suddenly. Try reducing the importance of the text in students' assignments. Try adding other readings to supplement the text, but make the alternative readings truly important--even crucial--to students' success. Turn the text into an enrichment resource for these other materials, and not the other way around.
If you're feeling a bit more daring, try reading about others' efforts to teach university courses without textbooks (see, for example, my postings in August, 2008 for links to a couple of good examples of this). And then consider doing it yourself. Expect to revise these efforts each year for a few years, and forgive yourself for any mistakes that happen along the way. For a good example of the imperfection of initial efforts to do without an ed psych, read about my own first effort, "Students' content priorities as authors of their own text about educational psychology".
It can be done, and has been done.
It is very likely, of course, that the situation is ambiguous. Some students may learn better from a commercial ed psych text than do others. It is also likely that some--or at least a few--can learn effectively only from such a text. And it is possible that some cannot learn ed psych well by any means at all--textbook or no textbook. Given these complications, what is an ed psych instructor to do?
My suggestions: Explore alternatives gradually, not suddenly. Try reducing the importance of the text in students' assignments. Try adding other readings to supplement the text, but make the alternative readings truly important--even crucial--to students' success. Turn the text into an enrichment resource for these other materials, and not the other way around.
If you're feeling a bit more daring, try reading about others' efforts to teach university courses without textbooks (see, for example, my postings in August, 2008 for links to a couple of good examples of this). And then consider doing it yourself. Expect to revise these efforts each year for a few years, and forgive yourself for any mistakes that happen along the way. For a good example of the imperfection of initial efforts to do without an ed psych, read about my own first effort, "Students' content priorities as authors of their own text about educational psychology".
It can be done, and has been done.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Do Ed Psych Instructors Really Need Textbooks?
Hmmm... A carefully considered title. I'm not asking if the students really need textbooks, but whether their instructors do. Seems like "the" text is taken for granted in North American versions of introductory ed psych courses. It's puzzling, and just a bit disturbing, to wonder why this is so. I am told that "the" text is much less common in some European nations (for a discussion of this trend, see the wiki-based site EdTech, operated by Daniel Schnieber in Geneva, Switzerland). And in the third world they may often be unaffordable and therefore missing. So things do not necessarily have to be the way that Americans (and their cousins, the Canadians) experience them.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Benefits to democracy vs. benefits to learning
Blogs and news stories about the benefits of open-source textbooks have made a variety of arguments supporting open-source textbooks. Amidst the variety, I sense two general types of arguments: one based on economic democracy and the other based on benefits to students' learning. The two perspectives have different implications--and I would also speculate that they may appeal to different sorts of people.
The perspective about economic democracy emphasizes the high cost of textbooks. It either argues or implies that the cost is a burden to students--or if not a burden now, then at least it is soon to become one. Where this argument becomes especially strong is in the area of international education. University education in third-world countries often lacks appropriate educational resources, including up-to-date and affordable textbooks. Paying $100-$200 per textbook, as sometimes happens in North America, is out of the question. Open-source textbooks promise to reduce that cost greatly. A good example of where this line of thinking leads is the Global Textbook Project, which is publishes an array of university textbooks online that are targeted to university students in third-world countries. Global Textbook Project appears to be motivated primarily by concerns about economic democracy.
The perspective about economic democracy emphasizes the high cost of textbooks. It either argues or implies that the cost is a burden to students--or if not a burden now, then at least it is soon to become one. Where this argument becomes especially strong is in the area of international education. University education in third-world countries often lacks appropriate educational resources, including up-to-date and affordable textbooks. Paying $100-$200 per textbook, as sometimes happens in North America, is out of the question. Open-source textbooks promise to reduce that cost greatly. A good example of where this line of thinking leads is the Global Textbook Project, which is publishes an array of university textbooks online that are targeted to university students in third-world countries. Global Textbook Project appears to be motivated primarily by concerns about economic democracy.
The perspective about benefits to learning are less focused on cost than on the educational disadvantages of commerical textbooks. Common complaints about existing texts are that 1) they are often unrealistically comprehensive or "big" for use in actual courses, 2) they are too fragmented in content and incoherent in point of view, or 3) not tailored enough to local students' learning needs or to local instructors' teaching strengths. Producing a textbook that is open-source does not deal with these problems directly, but it does create better conditions for dealing with them indirectly. For one thing, by reducing the cost of a text, its shortcomings (hopefully) become less aggravating. For another, the business models of open-source publishing that are being tried so far put a premium on brevity in a text, rather than on length. And for a third, the lack of exclusive copyright allows--or even encourages--adopters to edit and revise open-source textbooks themselves. The latter process can happen via a collaborative editing tool (e.g. a wiki), or via some other selection process by adopting instructors. These considerations seem to be guiding Flatworld Knowledge Publications, which is about to begin publishing open-source books that are essentially free of charge, but that also sells a variety of ancillary instructional and learning tools for tailoring and revising content to fit local needs. (Note, though, that in doing so it risks compromising the economic democracy advantage of open-source publishing. Someone has to pay for the ancillary tools, and presumably it will be the students who end up paying.)
The two advantages of economic democracy and benefits to learning do not conflict, but their relative strength may depend somewhat on the field of study. In fields where textbooks are expensive (e.g. medicine), the economic argument may be especially important. In fields where the content is debated actively and is subject to philosophical or ethical values (e.g. education), on the other hand, the learning benefits argument may matter more. The merits of open-source textbooks may vary, at least qualitatively if not quantitatively.
When it comes to teaching educational psychology to preservice teachers, both the economic and the learning arguments may have some merit, but it is not clear that they are equally valid. Introductory educational psychology textbooks abound, and they are probably more expensive than necessary (too many color pictures, too long,...). But they are not necessairly more expensive than average among university texts, and it is not always clear that their cost is truly prohibitive for North American university students. They do seem prohibitively expensive for third-world university students. In that global context, the economic democracy argument seems strong when applied to teaching educational psychology.
The learning benefits of open-source textbooks about educational psychology seem more plausible. There is indeed disagreement about what future teachers truly need to learn as well as about how they should learn. The flexibility that results indirectly from open-source formats lends itself to this reality. The learning benefits will only occur, though, if students and instructors of educational psychology realize that the benefits are possible and available. All parties must realize that open-source textbooks can lend themselves to revision and to customization for local needs. The cognitive equivalent of these processes probably does happen in introductory educational psychology whenever instructors and students discuss material from textbooks and/or complete assignments based partially on textbook topics. Seeing a link to writing and revising an actual textbook--to making it truly your own--takes this process a step further. It is starting to happen in some teacher education courses (for an example, see the online, student-written textbook called Educational Psychology)!
Thursday, August 28, 2008
What if Students Wrote Their Own Textbook about Ed Psych?
For reasons ranging from the economics to beliefs about education, most preservice courses about educational psychology have relied on major commercial textbooks as a reference and organizer of the course. Ed psych texts are generally well-organized, and the authors try to provide advice and examples that are practical. But inevitably they draw criticism anyway--even the ones that are best-sellers. Criticisms include that textbooks are too long, for example, too theoretical, too bland in perspective, or by nature insensitive to students’ diversity.
To some extent these problems stem from the commercial imperatives of the textbook industry. For economic reasons, publishers require large markets and centralized production. But a more subtle problem is that mass-produced textbooks position readers as recipients of previously formed knowledge, rather than self-constructors of knowledge. To some extent positioning students as recipients is inevitable because textbooks are static objects--they necessarily must “present” knowledge and assume that readers will let authors guide their thoughts. Ed psych authors usually work against these tendencies; for example they include discussion questions and interactive supplements. But it is still assumed that readers hold primarily personal beliefs needing modification, and not knowledge or ethical positions to be respected.
It should not surprise us, therefore, if education students value text-based courses, including educational psychology, less than other parts of teacher education, like curriculum studies or practice teaching. In these latter areas, students’ prior knowledge can contribute to their work more directly, and more easily be recognized as legitimately useful (Floden & Meniketti, 2005; Zeichner, 2005).
A radical, though possibly naïve remedy for these problems is to dispense with commercial textbooks altogether, and instead just ask educational psychology students to write their own textbook. In principle, student-authoring should not only empower students’ learning, but also lead to content that students regard as highly relevant in content. It should also help to motivate students--insure that they invest in the development of a text. Writing their text should position students as creators of knowledge, not as consumers of expert knowledge.
Some interesting research studies are beginning to be done to test these ideas. See, for example, recent work by Curtis Bonk and colleagues (at http://wiki-riki.wikispaces.com/Research+Papers+and+Reports). Or the work by Dwight Allen (at http://en.wikibooks.org/Social_and_Cultural_Foundations_of_American_Education).
Apparently the idea is not as silly as it might seem at first...
--Kelvin Seifert
To some extent these problems stem from the commercial imperatives of the textbook industry. For economic reasons, publishers require large markets and centralized production. But a more subtle problem is that mass-produced textbooks position readers as recipients of previously formed knowledge, rather than self-constructors of knowledge. To some extent positioning students as recipients is inevitable because textbooks are static objects--they necessarily must “present” knowledge and assume that readers will let authors guide their thoughts. Ed psych authors usually work against these tendencies; for example they include discussion questions and interactive supplements. But it is still assumed that readers hold primarily personal beliefs needing modification, and not knowledge or ethical positions to be respected.
It should not surprise us, therefore, if education students value text-based courses, including educational psychology, less than other parts of teacher education, like curriculum studies or practice teaching. In these latter areas, students’ prior knowledge can contribute to their work more directly, and more easily be recognized as legitimately useful (Floden & Meniketti, 2005; Zeichner, 2005).
A radical, though possibly naïve remedy for these problems is to dispense with commercial textbooks altogether, and instead just ask educational psychology students to write their own textbook. In principle, student-authoring should not only empower students’ learning, but also lead to content that students regard as highly relevant in content. It should also help to motivate students--insure that they invest in the development of a text. Writing their text should position students as creators of knowledge, not as consumers of expert knowledge.
Some interesting research studies are beginning to be done to test these ideas. See, for example, recent work by Curtis Bonk and colleagues (at http://wiki-riki.wikispaces.com/Research+Papers+and+Reports). Or the work by Dwight Allen (at http://en.wikibooks.org/Social_and_Cultural_Foundations_of_American_Education).
Apparently the idea is not as silly as it might seem at first...
--Kelvin Seifert
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Welcome!
Welcome to "Teaching Educational Psychology Open-Source"! Here will be commentary, ideas, and information about teaching educational psychology without using conventional commerical textbooks. In particular it will focus on using open-source materials--readings, textbooks, and textbook-like materials that are available freely on the Internet. The postings are intended for both instructors and students--though this could evolve over time depending on who comments and on the issues that emerge. The postings are motivated by the frustrations often felt by both students and instructors with the high cost of textbooks, combined with the inability of textbooks to tailor their content or style to local conditions and individual adopters.
Open-source materials may be part of the answer to these problems. If you are not familiar with the notion of "open-source" textbooks, you might have a look at the Global Textbook Project, at http://www.globaltext.org. They publish textbooks online free of charge. They also list links to a number of other free or extremely low-cost sources for college and university textbooks.
This blog is based on these sorts of publications, as well as others that will come up from time to time. And it is also focused on a particular subject area: the teaching of introductory educational psychology. Can ed psych be taught successfully using non-commercial, online materials? And if so, how? Maybe some answers can begin to emerge here...
Open-source materials may be part of the answer to these problems. If you are not familiar with the notion of "open-source" textbooks, you might have a look at the Global Textbook Project, at http://www.globaltext.org. They publish textbooks online free of charge. They also list links to a number of other free or extremely low-cost sources for college and university textbooks.
This blog is based on these sorts of publications, as well as others that will come up from time to time. And it is also focused on a particular subject area: the teaching of introductory educational psychology. Can ed psych be taught successfully using non-commercial, online materials? And if so, how? Maybe some answers can begin to emerge here...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
